Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T22:23:39.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Base-rate respect: From statistical formats to cognitive structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

Aron K. Barbey  and
Steven A. Sloman
Aron K. Barbey
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, barbeya@nih.ninds.gov
Steven A. Sloman
Affiliation:
Cognitive and Linguistics Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912Steven_Sloman@brown.eduhttp://www.cog.brown.edu/~sloman/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commentaries indicate a general agreement that one source of reduction of base-rate neglect involves making structural relations among relevant sets transparent. There is much less agreement, however, that this entails dual systems of reasoning. In this response, we make the case for our perspective on dual systems. We compare and contrast our view to the natural frequency hypothesis as formulated in the commentaries.

Information

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 287 - 292
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barbey, A. K. & Barsalou, L.W. (in press) Reasoning and problem solving: Models. In: New Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, ed. Squire, L., Albright, T., Bloom, F., Gage, F. & Spitzer, N.. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brase, G. L. (2002b) Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15:381–401.Google Scholar
Brase, G. L., Fiddick, L. & Harries, C. (2006) Participant recruitment methods and statistical reasoning performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59:965–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003) In two minds: Dual process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:454–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Over, D. E. (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102:684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., eds. (2002) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V. (2005) Cognitive neuroscience of deductive reasoning. In: Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., pp.49–81. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review 80:237–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiter, G. D. (1994) Natural sampling: Rationality without base-rates. In: Contributions to mathematical psychology, psychometrics, and methodology, ed. Fischer, G. H. & Laming, D., pp.375–88. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, J. J. (1996) The base-rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19:1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. & Johansen, M. K. (1999) A model of probabilistic category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 25:1083–119.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996a) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119:3–22.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996b) The probative value of simultaneous contradictory belief: Reply to Gigerenzer and Regier (1996). Psychological Bulletin 119:27–30.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1998) Categorical inference is not a tree: The myth of inheritance hierarchies. Cognitive Psychology 35:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (2005) Causal models: How we think about the world and its alternatives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:645–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982b) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In: Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., pp.3–20. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90:293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, L. & Gigerenzer, G. (2006) Children can solve Bayesian problems: The role of representation in mental computation. Cognition 98:287–308.Google Scholar