Base rates versus sample accuracy: competition for control in human matching to sample.

People often place undue weight on specific sources of information (case cues) and insufficient weight on more global sources (base rates) even when the latter are highly predictive, a phenomenon termed base-rate neglect. This phenomenon was first demonstrated with paper-and-pencil tasks, and also occurs in a matching-to-sample procedure in which subjects directly experience case sample (cue) accuracy and base rates, and in which discrete, nonverbal choices are made. In two nonverbal experiments, subjects were exposed to hundreds of trials in which they chose between two response options that were both probabilistically reinforced. In Experiment 1, following one of two possible samples (the unpredictive sample), either response was reinforced with a .5 probability. The other sample (predictive) provided reinforcement for matching on 80% of the trials in one condition but in only 20% of the trials in another condition. Subjects' choices following the unpredictive sample were determined primarily by the contingencies in effect for the predictive sample: If matching was reinforced following the predictive sample, subjects tended to match the unpredictive sample as well; if countermatching the predictive sample was generally reinforced, subjects tended to countermatch the unpredictive sample. These results demonstrate only weak control by base rates. In Experiment 2, base rates and sample accuracy were simultaneously varied in opposite directions to keep one set of conditional probabilities constant. Subjects' choices were determined primarily by the overall accuracy of the sample, again demonstrating only weak control by base rates. The same pattern of choice occurred whether this pattern increased or decreased rate of reinforcement. Together, the results of the two experiments provide a clear empirical demonstration of base-rate neglect.