Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:58:23.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A statistical taxonomy and another “chance” for natural frequencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

Adrien Barton ,
Shabnam Mousavi  and
Jeffrey R. Stevens
Adrien Barton
Affiliation:
Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max PlanckInstitute for Human Development, 14195 Berlin, Germany; barton@mpib-berlin.mpg.dehttp://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/forschung/abc/index.htm Institut d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris I, and CNRS/ENS – UMR 8590, 75006 Paris, Francemousavi@mpib-berlin.mpg.desxm70@psu.eduhttp://www.stat.psu.edu/people/faculty/smousavi.html/
Shabnam Mousavi
Affiliation:
Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max PlanckInstitute for Human Development, 14195 Berlin, Germany; barton@mpib-berlin.mpg.dehttp://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/forschung/abc/index.htm Department of Statistics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. jstevens@mpib-berlin.mpg.dehttp://www.abc.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/users/jstevens/
Jeffrey R. Stevens
Affiliation:
Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max PlanckInstitute for Human Development, 14195 Berlin, Germany; barton@mpib-berlin.mpg.dehttp://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/forschung/abc/index.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 255 - 256
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. (2002b) Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15:381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brase, G. L. (2007) The (in)flexibility of evolved frequency representations for statistical reasoning: Cognitive styles and brief prompts do not influence Bayesian inference. Acta Psychologica Sinica 39(3):398–405.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1996) Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58:1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102:684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Regier, T. P. (1996) How do we tell an association from a rule? Psychological Bulletin 119:23–26.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