Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness
Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness
复制标题
为什么%20只能%20%2024%%20解决%20贝叶斯%20推理%20问题%20in%20自然%20频率：%20频率%20恐惧症%20in%20怨恨%20的%20概率%20失明
作者：
Patrick Weber;Karin Binder;S. Krauss
20多年来，研究已经证明了自然频率在解决贝叶斯推理任务时的有益效果（Gigerenzer和Hoffrage，1995）。在最近的一项荟萃分析中，McDowell和Jacobs（2017）表明，以自然频率格式呈现任务将绩效率提高到24%，而以概率格式呈现相同任务时仅为4%。然而，平均四分之三的参与者在他们的荟萃分析中未能获得正确的解决方案，这样的任务在频率格式。在本文中，我们提出了一个实证研究，参与者通常做错了什么，当面对自然频率。我们发现，他们中的许多人实际上并没有使用自然频率进行计算，而是将其转换为复杂的概率。从直观的呈现格式到不太直观的计算格式的这种切换将在心理学理论的框架内进行讨论（例如，Einstellung效应）。
For more than 20 years, research has proven the beneficial effect of natural frequencies when it comes to solving Bayesian reasoning tasks (Gigerenzer and Hoffrage, 1995). In a recent meta-analysis, McDowell and Jacobs (2017) showed that presenting a task in natural frequency format increases performance rates to 24% compared to only 4% when the same task is presented in probability format. Nevertheless, on average three quarters of participants in their meta-analysis failed to obtain the correct solution for such a task in frequency format. In this paper, we present an empirical study on what participants typically do wrong when confronted with natural frequencies. We found that many of them did not actually use natural frequencies for their calculations, but translated them back into complicated probabilities instead. This switch from the intuitive presentation format to a less intuitive calculation format will be discussed within the framework of psychological theories (e.g., the Einstellung effect).