Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

A statistical taxonomy and another “chance” for natural frequencies

  • Adrien Barton (a1) (a2), Shabnam Mousavi (a1) (a3) and Jeffrey R. Stevens (a1)

The conclusions of Barbey & Sloman (B&S) crucially depend on evidence for different representations of statistical information. Unfortunately, a muddled distinction made among these representations calls into question the authors' conclusions. We clarify some notions of statistical representations which are often confused in the literature. These clarifications, combined with new empirical evidence, do not support a dual-process model of judgment.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

G. L. Brase (2002b) Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15:381401.

L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (1996) Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58:173.

G. Gigerenzer & U. Hoffrage (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102:684704.

G. Gigerenzer & T. P. Regier (1996) How do we tell an association from a rule? Psychological Bulletin 119:2326.

V. Girotto & M. Gonzalez (2001) Solving probabilistic and statistical problems: A matter of information structure and question form. Cognition 78:247–76.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 34 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

This erratum applies to the following article(s)