Literature DB >> 9519706

Who uses base rates and P(D/approximately H)? An analysis of individual differences.

K E Stanovich1, R F West.   

Abstract

In two experiments, involving over 900 subjects, we examined the cognitive correlates of the tendency to view P(D/approximately H) and base rate information as relevant to probability assessment. We found that individuals who viewed P(D/approximately H) as relevant in a selection task and who used it to make the proper Bayesian adjustment in a probability assessment task scored higher on tests of cognitive ability and were better deductive and inductive reasoners. They were less biased by prior beliefs and more data-driven on a covariation assessment task. In contrast, individuals who thought that base rates were relevant did not display better reasoning skill or higher cognitive ability. Our results parallel disputes about the normative status of various components of the Bayesian formula in interesting ways. It is argued that patterns of covariance among reasoning tasks may have implications for inferences about what individuals are trying to optimize in a rational analysis (J. R. Anderson, 1990, 1991).

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9519706     DOI: 10.3758/bf03211379

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  19 in total

1.  The source of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning.

Authors:  S E Newstead; P Pollard; J S Evans; J L Allen
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1992-12

2.  Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia.

Authors:  J G Snodgrass; J Corwin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1988-03

3.  The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions.

Authors:  H Markovits; G Nantel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1989-01

4.  Relevance theory explains the selection task.

Authors:  D Sperber; F Cara; V Girotto
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1995-10

Review 5.  Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science.

Authors:  L Cosmides; J Tooby
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1994 Apr-Jun

6.  Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results.

Authors:  W Casscells; A Schoenberger; T B Graboys
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-11-02       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Pragmatic reasoning schemas.

Authors:  P W Cheng; K J Holyoak
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.

Authors:  E A Wasserman; W W Dorner; S F Kao
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Is human learning rational?

Authors:  D R Shanks
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1995-05

Review 10.  Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: a reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena.

Authors:  J Friedrich
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  7 in total

1.  An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning.

Authors:  Magda Osman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-12

2.  Reasoning deficits in ecstasy (MDMA) polydrug users.

Authors:  John E Fisk; Catharine Montgomery; Michelle Wareing; Philip N Murphy
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2005-10-12       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  How many processes underlie category-based induction? Effects of conclusion specificity and cognitive ability.

Authors:  Aidan Feeney
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-10

4.  The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks.

Authors:  Maggie E Toplak; Richard F West; Keith E Stanovich
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-10

5.  Is probability matching smart? Associations between probabilistic choices and cognitive ability.

Authors:  Keith E Stanovich
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-03

6.  Whose statistical reasoning is facilitated by a causal structure intervention?

Authors:  Simon McNair; Aidan Feeney
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-02

7.  Cognitive Abilities, Monitoring Confidence, and Control Thresholds Explain Individual Differences in Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  Simon A Jackson; Sabina Kleitman; Pauline Howie; Lazar Stankov
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-10-13
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.