Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:47:49.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ordinary people do not ignore base rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

Donald Laming
Donald Laming
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Department of Experimental Psychology, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human responses to probabilities can be studied through gambling and through experiments presenting biased sequences of stimuli. In both cases, participants are sensitive to base rates. They adjust automatically to changes in base rate; such adjustment is incompatible with conformity to Bayes' Theorem. ”Base-rate neglect” is therefore specific to the exercises in mental arithmetic reviewed in the target article.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 272 - 274
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

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
Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102:684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M. (1960) Psychoacoustics and detection theory. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32:1189–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A. (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley.Google Scholar
Laming, D. (1968) Information theory of choice-reaction times. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Laming, D. (2001) Statistical information, uncertainty, and Bayes' theorem: Some applications in experimental psychology. In: Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2143, ed. Benferhat, S. & Besnard, P., pp. 635–46. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Laming, D. (2004) Human judgment: The eye of the beholder. Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. (1973) Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology 101:16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. (1995–1996) Communicable Disease Report, Monthly edition. London: Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Laboratory Service.Google Scholar
Tanner, T. A., Rauk, J. A. & Atkinson, R. C. (1970) Signal recognition as influenced by information feedback. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7:259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, W. P. Jr., Swets, J. A. & Green, D.M. (1956) Some general properties of the hearing mechanism. University of Michigan: Electronic Defense Group, Technical Report 30.Google Scholar
Thomas, E. A. C. & Legge, D. (1970) Probability matching as a basis for detection and recognition decisions. Psychological Review 77:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenaar, W. A. (1988) Paradoxes of gambling behaviour. Erlbaum.Google Scholar