The inverse base-rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference.

The inverse base-rate effect is a phenomenon in which people learn about some common and some rare outcomes and in subsequent testing people predict the rare outcome for particular sets of conflicting cues, contrary to normative predictions. P. Juslin, P. Wennerholm, and A. Winman suggested that the effect could be explained by eliminative inference, contrary to the attention-shifting explanation of J. K. Kruschke. The present article shows that the eliminative inference model exhibits ordinal discrepancies from previously published data and from data of 2 new experiments. A connectionist implementation of attentional theory fits the data well. The author concludes that people can use eliminative inference but that it cannot account for the inverse base-rate effect.