Evans J S, Handley S J, Perham N, Over D E, Thompson V A
Centre for Thinking and Language, Department of Psychology, University of Plymouth, PL4 8AA, Plymouth, UK.
Cognition. 2000 Dec 15;77(3):197-213. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00098-6.
Three experiments examined people's ability to incorporate base rate information when judging posterior probabilities. Specifically, we tested the (Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgement under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1-73) conclusion that people's reasoning appears to follow Bayesian principles when they are presented with information in a frequency format, but not when information is presented as one case probabilities. First, we found that frequency formats were not generally associated with better performance than probability formats unless they were presented in a manner which facilitated construction of a set inclusion mental model. Second, we demonstrated that the use of frequency information may promote biases in the weighting of information. When participants are asked to express their judgements in frequency rather than probability format, they were more likely to produce the base rate as their answer, ignoring diagnostic evidence.
三项实验研究了人们在判断后验概率时纳入基础概率信息的能力。具体而言,我们检验了(科斯米德斯,L.,& 图比,J.(1996年)。人类终究是优秀的直觉统计学家吗?重新思考不确定性判断文献中的一些结论。《认知》,58,1 - 73)的结论,即当以频率格式呈现信息时,人们的推理似乎遵循贝叶斯原则,但当信息以单个案例概率的形式呈现时则不然。首先,我们发现,除非频率格式以有助于构建集合包含心理模型的方式呈现,否则它通常并不比概率格式带来更好的表现。其次,我们证明了频率信息的使用可能会在信息加权方面引发偏差。当要求参与者以频率而非概率格式表达他们的判断时,他们更有可能给出基础概率作为答案,而忽略诊断证据。