Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:58:21.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nested sets theory, full stop: Explaining performance on Bayesian inference tasks without dual-systems assumptions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

David R. Mandel
David R. Mandel
Affiliation:
Defence Research and Development Canada (Toronto), Toronto, ON M3M 3B9, Canada. david.mandel@drdc-rddc.gc.cahttp://mandel.socialpsychology.org/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consistent with Barbey & Sloman (B&S), it is proposed that performance on Bayesian inference tasks is well explained by nested sets theory (NST). However, contrary to those authors' view, it is proposed that NST does better by dispelling with dual-systems assumptions. This article examines why, and sketches out a series of NST's core principles, which were not previously defined.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 275 - 276
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

Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102:684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girotto, V. & Gonzalez, M. (2001) Solving probabilistic and statistical problems: A matter of information structure and question form. Cognition 78:247–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., Legrenzi, M. S. & Caverni, J.-P. (1999) Naïve probability: A mental model theory of extensional reasoning. Psychological Review 106:62–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koehler, J. J. (1996) The base-rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19:1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1931) The conflict between Aristotelian and Galileian modes of thought in contemporary psychology. Journal of Genetic Psychology 5:141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, D. R. (in press) Violations of coherence in subjective probability: A representational and assessment processes account. Cognition. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.001.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E.West, R. F. (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:645–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villejoubert, G. & Mandel, D. R. (2002) The inverse fallacy: An account of deviations from Bayes's theorem and the additivity principle. Memory & Cognition 30:171–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed