Question Format and Representations:
Do Heuristics and Biases Apply
to Statistics Students?
Jennifer J. Kaplan
Michigan State University
kaplan@stt.msu.edu
JUAN DU
Kansas State University
dujuan@ksu.edu
ABSTRACT
Researchers in the field of psychology studying subjects’ reasoning abilities and decision-making processes have identified certain common errors that are made, particularly on probability questions standard in introductory statistics courses. In addition, they have identified modifications to problems and training that promote normative reasoning in laboratory subjects. This study attempts to replicate, in the context of a statistics classroom, the results of one particular type of probability question, a two-stage conditional probability problem. The psychology literature suggests two possible implications for teaching probability. Although no effect for format modification was found, the representations training effects were replicated. The implications of these results for teaching and directions for future research are discussed.
Keywords: Statistics education research; Probability; Representations; Question format
Statistics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 56-73, http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj
Ó International Association for Statistical Education (IASE/ISI), November, 2009
REFERENCEs
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1-73.
De Veaux, R., Velleman, P., & Bock, D. (2006). Intro Stats (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Evans, J. St.B. T., & Newstead, S. (1995). Creating a psychology of reasoning: The contribution of Peter Wason. In S. Newstead & J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking and reasoning: Essays in honour of Peter Wason (pp. 1-16). East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ltd.
Fiedler, K. (1988). The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychological Research, 50, 123-129.
Girotto, V., & Gonzalez, M. (2001). Solving probabilistic and statistical problems: A matter of information structure and question form. Cognition, 78, 247-276.
Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The ‘conjunction fallacy’ revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 275-305.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1994). Mental models and probabilistic thinking. Cognition, 50, 189-209.
Johnston, G., & Stokes, M. (1996). Applications of GEE Methodology Using the SAS System. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C.J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Liang, K.Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13-22.
Macchi, L. (2000). Partitive formulation of information in probabilistic problems: Beyond heuristics and frequency format explanations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 217-236.
Macchi, L. (1995). Pragmatic aspects of the base rate fallacy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A(1), 188-207.
Moore, D. (2003). The Basic Practice of Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Sedlmeier, P. (1999). Improving statistical reasoning: Theoretical models and practical implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stanovich, K. (1999). Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Thompson, V. (1996). Reasoning from false premises: The role of soundness in making logical deductions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 315-319.
JENNIFER J. KAPLAN
443 Wells Hall
Department of Statistics and Probability
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
USA