IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v3y2008i2p140-152_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Frequency formats, probability formats, or problem structure? A test of the nested-sets hypothesis in an extensional reasoning task

Author

Listed:
  • Neace, William P.
  • Michaud, Steven
  • Bolling, Lauren
  • Deer, Kate
  • Zecevic, Ljiljana

Abstract

Five experiments addressed a controversy in the probability judgment literature that centers on the efficacy of framing probabilities as frequencies. The natural frequency view predicts that frequency formats attenuate errors, while the nested-sets view predicts that highlighting the set-subset structure of the problem reduces error, regardless of problem format. This study tested these predictions using a conjunction task. Previous studies reporting that frequency formats reduced conjunction errors confounded reference class with problem format. After controlling this confound, the present study’s findings show that conjunction errors can be reduced using either a probability or a frequency format, that frequency effects depend upon the presence of a reference class, and that frequency formats do not promote better statistical reasoning than probability formats.

Suggested Citation

  • Neace, William P. & Michaud, Steven & Bolling, Lauren & Deer, Kate & Zecevic, Ljiljana, 2008. "Frequency formats, probability formats, or problem structure? A test of the nested-sets hypothesis in an extensional reasoning task," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 140-152, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:2:p:140-152_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500001480/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:2:p:140-152_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.