Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:14:36.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing sensitivity to base-rates: Natural frequencies are not enough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

Edmund Fantino  and
Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino
Edmund Fantino
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109. [email protected]@psy.ucsd.edu
Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109. [email protected]@psy.ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present evidence supporting the target article's assertion that while the presentation of base-rate information in a natural frequency format can be helpful in enhancing sensitivity to base rates, method of presentation is not a panacea. Indeed, we review studies demonstrating that when subjects directly experience base rates as natural frequencies in a trial-by-trial setting, they evince large base-rate neglect.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 262 - 263
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

Fantino, E., Kanevsky, I. G. & Charlton, S. (2005) Teaching pigeons to commit base-rate neglect. Psychological Science 16:820–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K. (2000) Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review 107:659–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodie, A. S. & Fantino, E. (1995) An experientially derived base-rate error in humans. Psychological Science 6:101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V. (1996) Learning to commit or avoid the base-rate error. Nature 380:247–49.Google Scholar
Goel, V. (1999) What does and does not alleviate base-rate neglect under direct experience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12:307–35.Google Scholar
Hartl, J. A. & Fantino, E. (1996) Choice as a function of reinforcement ratios in delayed matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 66:11–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, H. M. & Ward, W. C. (1965) Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs 79, No. 1 (Whole No. 594).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolarz-Fantino, S. & Fantino, E. (1990) Cognition and behavior analysis: A review of Rachlin's Judgment, Decision, & Choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 54:317–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolarz-Fantino, S. & Fantino, E. (1995) The experimental analysis of reasoning: A review of Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 64:111–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolarz-Fantino, S., Fantino, E. & Van Borst, N. (2006) Use of base rates and case cue information in making likelihood estimates. Memory and Cognition 34:603–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982a) Evidential impact of base rates. In: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., pp. 153–60. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, W. C. & Jenkins, H. M. (1965) The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Review of Canadian Psychology 19:231–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed