Literature DB >> 11461203

Do Conditional Hypotheses Target Rare Events?

Craig R. M. McKenzie1, Victor S. Ferreira, Laurie A. Mikkelsen, Kristine J. McDermott, Ryan P. Skrable.   

Abstract

When testing hypotheses, rare or unexpected observations are normatively more informative than common observations, and recent studies have shown that participants' behavior reflects this principle. Research has also shown that, when asked to test conditional hypotheses ("If X, then Y") that are abstract or unfamiliar, participants overwhelmingly consider a supporting observation mentioned in the hypothesis (X&Y) to be more informative than a supporting observation not mentioned ( approximately X approximately Y). These two empirical findings would mesh well if conditional hypotheses tend to be phrased in terms of rare, rather than common, events. Six experiments are reported indicating that people do have a tendency-often a very strong one-to phrase conditional hypotheses in terms of rare events. Thus, observations mentioned in conditional hypotheses might generally be considered highly informative because they usually are highly informative. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Year:  2001        PMID: 11461203     DOI: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2947

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process        ISSN: 0749-5978


  10 in total

1.  What a speaker's choice of frame reveals: reference points, frame selection, and framing effects.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie; Jonathan D Nelson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-09

2.  Data selection and natural sampling: probabilities do matter.

Authors:  Mike Oaksford; Michelle Wakefield
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-01

3.  Framing effects in inference tasks--and why they are normatively defensible.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-09

4.  Increased sensitivity to differentially diagnostic answers using familiar materials: implications for confirmation bias.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-04

Review 5.  How to never be wrong.

Authors:  Samuel J Gershman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

6.  When wrong predictions provide more support than right ones.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie; Marsha B Amin
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

7.  Negations and natural sampling in data selection: ecological versus heuristic explanations of matching bias.

Authors:  Mike Oaksford; Marek Moussakowski
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-06

8.  Optimal data selection: revision, review, and reevaluation.

Authors:  Mike Oaksford; Nick Chater
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-06

Review 9.  Asking the right questions about the psychology of human inquiry: Nine open challenges.

Authors:  Anna Coenen; Jonathan D Nelson; Todd M Gureckis
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

10.  On the role of rarity information in speakers' choice of frame.

Authors:  Hidehito Honda; Toshihiko Matsuka
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-07
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.