+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Good fences make for good neighbors but bad science: a review of what improves Bayesian reasoning and why

Good fences make for good neighbors but bad science: a review of what improves Bayesian reasoning and why

Frontiers in Psychology 6: 340

Bayesian reasoning, defined here as the updating of a posterior probability following new information, has historically been problematic for humans. Classic psychology experiments have tested human Bayesian reasoning through the use of word problems and have evaluated each participant's performance against the normatively correct answer provided by Bayes' theorem. The standard finding is of generally poor performance. Over the past two decades, though, progress has been made on how to improve Bayesian reasoning. Most notably, research has demonstrated that the use of frequencies in a natural sampling framework-as opposed to single-event probabilities-can improve participants' Bayesian estimates. Furthermore, pictorial aids and certain individual difference factors also can play significant roles in Bayesian reasoning success. The mechanics of how to build tasks which show these improvements is not under much debate. The explanations for why naturally sampled frequencies and pictures help Bayesian reasoning remain hotly contested, however, with many researchers falling into ingrained "camps" organized around two dominant theoretical perspectives. The present paper evaluates the merits of these theoretical perspectives, including the weight of empirical evidence, theoretical coherence, and predictive power. By these criteria, the ecological rationality approach is clearly better than the heuristics and biases view. Progress in the study of Bayesian reasoning will depend on continued research that honestly, vigorously, and consistently engages across these different theoretical accounts rather than staying "siloed" within one particular perspective. The process of science requires an understanding of competing points of view, with the ultimate goal being integration.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057950572

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25873904

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00340

Related references

Good fences make good neighbors : cardiovascular science and medicine at the end of the millenium. Circulation 99(1): 6-7, 1999

Good fences make good neighbors: barrier elements and genomic regulation. Molecular Cell 16(4): 500-502, 2004

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: A Response to Overton and Ennis. Human Development 49(3): 173-179, 2006

Good virtual fences make good neighbors: opportunities for conservation. Animal Conservation 17(3): 187-196, 2014

Good fences make good neighbors: Gastrointestinal mucosal structure. Gut Microbes 1(1): 22-29, 2011

Are catenins and cadherins relevant to tumor biology? Good fences make good neighbors. Laboratory Investigation; a Journal of Technical Methods and Pathology 72(5): 491-493, 1995

Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? The Cross Border Impact of Casino Entrance. Growth and Change 45(1): 5-20, 2014

"Good Fences Make Good Neighbors": Geography as Self-Definition in Early Modern England. Isis 82(4): 639-661, 1991

Myoepithelial cells: good fences make good neighbors. Breast Cancer Research 7(5): 190-197, 2005

Brief: Software Licences: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors. Journal of Petroleum Technology 47(06): 506-507, 1995

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?. Ecological Restoration 32(1): 1-2, 2014

Good fences make good neighbors. DVM 33(6): 12, 2002

Electronic fences make good neighbors: the importance of medical records managers to protecting autonomy. American Journal of Bioethics 13(4): 50-52, 2013

Development of the renal glomerulus: good neighbors and good fences. Development 135(4): 609-620, 2008

Good Fences Make Good NeighborsBarrier Elements and Genomic Regulation. Molecular Cell 16(4): 500-502, 2004