High-Level Reasoning and Base-Rate Use: Do We Need Cue-Competition to Explain the Inverse Base-Rate Effect?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 849-871

  Juslin, Peter ^a,c   Wennerholm, Pia ^b   Winman, Anders ^b  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c Umeå University ^*  (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; ATTENTION; CUES; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 85047683997     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.849     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Beach, L. R. (1982). Experience and the base-rate fallacy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 270-278.
3. Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Bushyhead, J. B. (1981). Physicians' use of probabilistic information in a real clinical setting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 928-935.
4. Erickson, M. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107-140.
5. Estes, W. K. (1994). Classifications and cognition. London: Oxford University Press.
6. Fagot, J., Kruschke, J. K., Depy, D., & Vauclair, J. (1998). Associative learning in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio Papio): Species differences in learned attention to visual features. Animal Cognition, 1, 123-133.
7. Gluck, M. A. (1992). Stimulus sampling and distributed representations in adaptive network theories of learning. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), Essays in honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 1, pp. 169-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227-247.
9. Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P., & Winman, A. (1999). Mirroring the inverse base-rate effect: The novel symptom phenomenon. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 252-257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Koehler, J. (1996). The base-rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 1-53.
11. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22-44.
12. Kruschke, J. K. (1996). Base rates in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1, 3-26.
13. Kruschke, J. K., & Bradley, A. L. (1995). Extensions to the delta rule for associative learning. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University Bloomington.
14. Kruschke, J. K., & Johansen, M. K. (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1083-1119.
15. Markman, A. B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 417-421.
16. Medin, D. L., & Bettger, L. G. (1991). Sensitivity to changes in base-rate information. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 311-332.
17. Medin, D. L., & Edelson, S. M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 68-85.
18. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
19. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57.
20. Nosofsky, R. M. (1987). Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 87-108.
21. Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Similarity scaling and cognitive process models. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 25-53.
22. Nosofsky, R. M., Kruschke, J. K., & McKinley, S. C. (1992). Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 211-233.
23. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266-300.
24. Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53-79.
25. Shanks, D. R. (1992). Connectionist accounts of the inverse base-rate effect. Connection Science, 4, 3-18.
26. Wennerholm, P., & Winman, A. (2000). Separating associative from rule-based generalization in the inverse base-rate paradigm. Manuscript submitted for publication.