Literature DB >> 22427266

Reasoning with base rates is routine, relatively effortless, and context dependent.

Gordon Pennycook1, Valerie A Thompson.   

Abstract

We tested models of base rate "neglect" using a novel paradigm. Participants (N = 62) judged the probability that a hypothetical person belonged to one of two categories (e.g., nurse/doctor) on the basis of either a personality description alone (NoBR) or the personality description and a base rate probability (BR). When base rates and descriptions were congruent, judgments in the BR condition were higher and more uniform than those in the NoBR condition. In contrast, base rates had a polarizing effect on judgments when they were incongruent with the descriptions, such that estimates were either consistent with the base rates or discrepant with them. These data suggest that the form of base rate use (i.e., whether base rates will be integrated with diagnostic information) is context dependent. In addition, judgments made under instructions to respond intuitively were influenced by the base rates and took the same length of time in the two conditions. These data suggest that the use of base rates is routine and effortless and that base rate "neglect" is really a mixture of two strategies, one that is informed primarily by the base rate and the other by the personality description.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22427266     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0249-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  10 in total

Review 1.  A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.

Authors:  Daniel Kahneman
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2003-09

2.  In conflict with ourselves? An investigation of heuristic and analytic processes in decision making.

Authors:  Carissa Bonner; Ben R Newell
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-03

3.  Intuition, reason, and metacognition.

Authors:  Valerie A Thompson; Jamie A Prowse Turner; Gordon Pennycook
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations.

Authors:  Wim De Neys
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  Bias and Conflict: A Case for Logical Intuitions.

Authors:  Wim De Neys
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-01-05

6.  Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems.

Authors:  J S Evans; S J Handley; N Perham; D E Over; V A Thompson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2000-12-15

Review 7.  Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.

Authors:  Jonathan St B T Evans
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 24.137

Review 8.  Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes.

Authors:  Aron K Barbey; Steven A Sloman
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 12.579

9.  Smarter than we think: when our brains detect that we are biased.

Authors:  Wim De Neys; Oshin Vartanian; Vinod Goel
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-05

10.  Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking.

Authors:  Wim De Neys; Tamara Glumicic
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-07-12
  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  From reading numbers to seeing ratios: a benefit of icons for risk comprehension.

Authors:  Elisabet Tubau; Javier Rodríguez-Ferreiro; Itxaso Barberia; Àngels Colomé
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-06-21

2.  When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias.

Authors:  Dries Trippas; Valerie A Thompson; Simon J Handley
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-05

3.  More or less of me and you: self-relevance augments the effects of item probability on stimulus prioritization.

Authors:  Saga L Svensson; Marius Golubickis; Hollie Maclean; Johanna K Falbén; Linn M Persson; Dimitra Tsamadi; Siobhan Caughey; Arash Sahraie; C Neil Macrae
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-07-29

4.  It's not always about me: The effects of prior beliefs and stimulus prevalence on self-other prioritisation.

Authors:  Johanna K Falbén; Marius Golubickis; Darja Wischerath; Dimitra Tsamadi; Linn M Persson; Siobhan Caughey; Saga L Svensson; C Neil Macrae
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.143

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.