How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities

Natural frequencies are known to improve performance in Bayesian reasoning. However, their impact in situations with two binary events has not yet been completely examined, as most researchers in the last 30 years focused only on conditional probabilities. Nevertheless, situations with two binary ev...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nathalie Stegmüller, Karin Binder, Stefan Krauss
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2024-04-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1296359/full
_version_ 1797215549975953408
author Nathalie Stegmüller
Karin Binder
Stefan Krauss
author_facet Nathalie Stegmüller
Karin Binder
Stefan Krauss
author_sort Nathalie Stegmüller
collection DOAJ
description Natural frequencies are known to improve performance in Bayesian reasoning. However, their impact in situations with two binary events has not yet been completely examined, as most researchers in the last 30 years focused only on conditional probabilities. Nevertheless, situations with two binary events consist of 16 elementary probabilities and so we widen the scope and focus on joint probabilities. In this article, we theoretically elaborate on the importance of joint probabilities, for example, in situations like the Linda problem. Furthermore, we implemented a study in a 2×5×2 design with the factors information format (probabilities vs. natural frequencies), visualization type (“Bayesian text” vs. tree diagram vs. double tree diagram vs. net diagram vs. 2×2 table), and context (mammography vs. economics problem). Additionally, all four “joint questions” (i.e., P(A∩B),P(A¯∩B),P(A¯∩B¯),P(A∩B¯)) were asked for. The main factor of interest was whether there is a format effect in the five visualization types named above. Surprisingly, the advantage of natural frequencies was not found for joint probabilities and, most strikingly, the format interacted with the visualization type. Specifically, while people’s understanding of joint probabilities in a double tree seems to be worse than the understanding of the corresponding natural frequencies (and, thus, the frequency effect holds true), the opposite seems to be true in the 2 × 2 table. Hence, the advantage of natural frequencies compared to probabilities in typical Bayesian tasks cannot be found in the same way when joint probability or frequency tasks are asked.
first_indexed 2024-04-24T11:31:51Z
format Article
id doaj.art-42a78bdcf1d94e129d9594b29ac03ed4
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1664-1078
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-24T11:31:51Z
publishDate 2024-04-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Psychology
spelling doaj.art-42a78bdcf1d94e129d9594b29ac03ed42024-04-10T08:41:23ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782024-04-011510.3389/fpsyg.2024.12963591296359How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilitiesNathalie Stegmüller0Karin Binder1Stefan Krauss2Mathematics Education, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, GermanyMathematics Education, Institute of Mathematics, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, GermanyMathematics Education, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, GermanyNatural frequencies are known to improve performance in Bayesian reasoning. However, their impact in situations with two binary events has not yet been completely examined, as most researchers in the last 30 years focused only on conditional probabilities. Nevertheless, situations with two binary events consist of 16 elementary probabilities and so we widen the scope and focus on joint probabilities. In this article, we theoretically elaborate on the importance of joint probabilities, for example, in situations like the Linda problem. Furthermore, we implemented a study in a 2×5×2 design with the factors information format (probabilities vs. natural frequencies), visualization type (“Bayesian text” vs. tree diagram vs. double tree diagram vs. net diagram vs. 2×2 table), and context (mammography vs. economics problem). Additionally, all four “joint questions” (i.e., P(A∩B),P(A¯∩B),P(A¯∩B¯),P(A∩B¯)) were asked for. The main factor of interest was whether there is a format effect in the five visualization types named above. Surprisingly, the advantage of natural frequencies was not found for joint probabilities and, most strikingly, the format interacted with the visualization type. Specifically, while people’s understanding of joint probabilities in a double tree seems to be worse than the understanding of the corresponding natural frequencies (and, thus, the frequency effect holds true), the opposite seems to be true in the 2 × 2 table. Hence, the advantage of natural frequencies compared to probabilities in typical Bayesian tasks cannot be found in the same way when joint probability or frequency tasks are asked.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1296359/fulljoint probabilitiesBayesian reasoningnatural frequenciesvisualizationnet diagram
spellingShingle Nathalie Stegmüller
Karin Binder
Stefan Krauss
How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities
Frontiers in Psychology
joint probabilities
Bayesian reasoning
natural frequencies
visualization
net diagram
title How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities
title_full How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities
title_fullStr How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities
title_full_unstemmed How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities
title_short How general is the natural frequency effect? The case of joint probabilities
title_sort how general is the natural frequency effect the case of joint probabilities
topic joint probabilities
Bayesian reasoning
natural frequencies
visualization
net diagram
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1296359/full
work_keys_str_mv AT nathaliestegmuller howgeneralisthenaturalfrequencyeffectthecaseofjointprobabilities
AT karinbinder howgeneralisthenaturalfrequencyeffectthecaseofjointprobabilities
AT stefankrauss howgeneralisthenaturalfrequencyeffectthecaseofjointprobabilities