Ecological issues: A reply to Todd, Fiddick, & Krauss

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 385-388

  Over, David E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84977813359     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/135467800750038193     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Anderson, J. R., 1990. The adaptive character of thought, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
2. Audi, R., 1989. Practical reasoning, London: Routledge.
3. Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., Perham, N., Over, D. E., and Thompson, V. A., in press. Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems. Cognition.
4. Evans, J. St. B. T., and Over, D. E., 1996. Rationality and reasoning, Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
5. Evans, J. St. B. T., and Over, D. E., 1997. Rationality in reasoning: The problem of deductive competence. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16: 3–38.
6. Evans, J. St. B. T., Over, D. E., and Manktelow, K. I., 1993. Reasoning, decision making, and rationality. Cognition, 49: 165–187.
7. Gigerenzer, G., and Hoffrage, U., 1995. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102: 684–704.
8. Gigerenzer, G., and Hoffrage, U., 1999. Overcoming difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: A reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Meilers and McGraw (1999). Psychological Review, 106: 425–430.
9. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., and The ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart, New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Girotto, V., and Gonzalez, M., in press. Solving probabilistic and statistical problems: A matter of information structure and question form. Cognition.
11. Oaksford, M., and Chafer, N., 1998. Rational models of cognition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Over, D. E., 2000. Ecological rationality and its heuristics. Thinking and Reasoning, 6: 182–192.
13. Over, D. E., and Evans, J. St. B. T., 1997. Two cheers for deductive competence. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16: 255–278.
14. Over, D. E., and Manktelow, K. I., 1993. “ Rationality, utility, and deontic reasoning ”. In Rationality: Philosophical and psychological perspectives, Edited by: Manktelow, K. I., and Over, D. E., London: Routledge.
15. Sloman, S. A., 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 3–22.
16. Sloman, S. A., Do frequency frames make probability judgements more coherent?. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Thinking, University of Durham. August24–262000.
17. Smith, E. E., Langsten, C., and Nisbett, R. E., 1992. The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16: 1–40.
18. Stanovich, K. E., 1999. Who is rational? Studies in individual differences in reasoning, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
19. Stanovich, K. E., and West, R. F., in press. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
20. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185: 1124–1131.