Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-x64cq Total loading time: 0.26 Render date: 2022-05-17T22:07:47.162Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Base-rate neglect and coarse probability representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

Yanlong Sun
Affiliation:
School of Health Information Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030. Yanlong.Sun@uth.tmc.eduHongbin.Wang@uth.tmc.edu
Hongbin Wang
Affiliation:
School of Health Information Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030. Yanlong.Sun@uth.tmc.eduHongbin.Wang@uth.tmc.edu

Abstract

We believe that when assessing the likelihood of uncertain events, statistically unsophisticated people utilize a coarse internal scale that only has a limited number of categories. The success of the nested sets hypothesis may lie in its ability to provide an appropriate set structure of the problem by reducing the computational demands.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cox, E. P. III. (1980) The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research 17:407–22.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R. & Tsivkin, S. (1999) Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science 284(5416):970–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102:684704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63:8197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, Y., Wang, H., Zhang, J. & Smith, J. W. (in press) Probabilistic judgment on a coarser scale. Cognitive Systems Research.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Base-rate neglect and coarse probability representation
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Base-rate neglect and coarse probability representation
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Base-rate neglect and coarse probability representation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *