Literature DB >> 15355148

The collider principle in causal reasoning: why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard.

Bruce D Burns1, Mareike Wieth.   

Abstract

The authors tested the thesis that people find the Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) hard because they fail to understand the implications of its causal structure, a collider structure in which 2 independent causal factors influence a single outcome. In 4 experiments, participants performed better in versions of the MHD involving competition, which emphasizes causality. This manipulation resulted in more correct responses to questions about the process in the MHD and a counterfactual that changed its causal structure. Correct responses to these questions were associated with solving the MHD regardless of condition. In addition, training on the collider principle transferred to a standard version of the MHD. The MHD taps a deeper question: When is knowing about one thing informative about another? ((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15355148     DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.434

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  10 in total

1.  Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall Dilemma.

Authors:  Walter T Herbranson; Julia Schroeder
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.231

2.  Learning how to "make a deal": human (Homo sapiens) and monkey (Macaca mulatta) performance when repeatedly faced with the Monty Hall Dilemma.

Authors:  Emily D Klein; Theodore A Evans; Natasha B Schultz; Michael J Beran
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2012-07-02       Impact factor: 2.231

3.  Choice behavior of pigeons (Columba livia), college students, and preschool children (Homo sapiens) in the Monty Hall dilemma.

Authors:  James E Mazur; Patricia E Kahlbaugh
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 2.231

4.  Normativity, interpretation, and Bayesian models.

Authors:  Mike Oaksford
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-05-15

Review 5.  Reasoning and choice in the Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD): implications for improving Bayesian reasoning.

Authors:  Elisabet Tubau; David Aguilar-Lleyda; Eric D Johnson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-03-31

6.  The equiprobability bias from a mathematical and psychological perspective.

Authors:  Nicolas Gauvrit; Kinga Morsanyi
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2014-12-31

7.  The Monty Hall problem revisited: Autonomic arousal in an inverted version of the game.

Authors:  Eduardo Massad; Paulo Cesar Costa Dos Santos; Armando Freitas da Rocha; Edward J N Stupple
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lore Saenen; Mieke Heyvaert; Wim Van Dooren; Walter Schaeken; Patrick Onghena
Journal:  Psychol Belg       Date:  2018-06-01

9.  Testing the limits of optimality: the effect of base rates in the Monty Hall dilemma.

Authors:  Walter T Herbranson; Shanglun Wang
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.926

10.  Rationality, the Bayesian standpoint, and the Monty-Hall problem.

Authors:  Jean Baratgin
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-08-11
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.