Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T01:10:40.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dual concerns with the dualist approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

David A. Lagnado  and
David R. Shanks
David A. Lagnado
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. d.lagnado@ucl.ac.ukd.shanks@ucl.ac.uk
David R. Shanks
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. d.lagnado@ucl.ac.ukd.shanks@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barbey & Sloman (B&S) attribute all instances of normative base-rate usage to a rule-based system, and all instances of neglect to an associative system. As it stands, this argument is too simplistic, and indeed fails to explain either good or bad performance on the classic Medical Diagnosis problem.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 271 - 272
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

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
Eddy, D. M. (1982) Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., pp. 249–67. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., Over, D. E. & Perham, N. (2002) Background beliefs in Bayesian inference. Memory & Cognition 30:179–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gluck, M. A. & Bower, G. H. (1988) From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117:227–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, D. & Buehler, R. (1999) Frequency, probability, and prediction: Easy solutions to cognitive illusions? Cognitive Psychology 38:48–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howson, C. & Urbach, P. (2006) Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Method, 3rd edition. Open Court.Google Scholar
Johansen, M. K., Fouquet, N. & Shanks, D. R. (in press) Paradoxical effects of base rates and representation in category learning. Memory & Cognition.Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P. & Winman, A. (2001) High level reasoning and base-rate use: Do we need cue-competition to explain the inverse base-rate effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27:849–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2001) The inverse base-rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27:1385–400.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L. & Edelson, S. M. (1988) Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117:68–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed