↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian probability estimates are not necessary to make choices satisfying Bayes’ rule in elementary situations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bayesian probability estimates are not necessary to make choices satisfying Bayes’ rule in elementary situations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Artur Domurat, Olga Kowalczuk, Katarzyna Idzikowska, Zuzanna Borzymowska, Marta Nowak-Przygodzka

Abstract

This paper has two aims. First, we investigate how often people make choices conforming to Bayes' rule when natural sampling is applied. Second, we show that using Bayes' rule is not necessary to make choices satisfying Bayes' rule. Simpler methods, even fallacious heuristics, might prescribe correct choices reasonably often under specific circumstances. We considered elementary situations with binary sets of hypotheses and data. We adopted an ecological approach and prepared two-stage computer tasks resembling natural sampling. Probabilistic relations were inferred from a set of pictures, followed by a choice which was made to maximize the chance of a preferred outcome. Use of Bayes' rule was deduced indirectly from choices. Study 1 used a stratified sample of N = 60 participants equally distributed with regard to gender and type of education (humanities vs. pure sciences). Choices satisfying Bayes' rule were dominant. To investigate ways of making choices more directly, we replicated Study 1, adding a task with a verbal report. In Study 2 (N = 76) choices conforming to Bayes' rule dominated again. However, the verbal reports revealed use of a new, non-inverse rule, which always renders correct choices, but is easier than Bayes' rule to apply. It does not require inversion of conditions [transforming P(H) and P(D|H) into P(H|D)] when computing chances. Study 3 examined the efficiency of three fallacious heuristics (pre-Bayesian, representativeness, and evidence-only) in producing choices concordant with Bayes' rule. Computer-simulated scenarios revealed that the heuristics produced correct choices reasonably often under specific base rates and likelihood ratios. Summing up we conclude that natural sampling results in most choices conforming to Bayes' rule. However, people tend to replace Bayes' rule with simpler methods, and even use of fallacious heuristics may be satisfactorily efficient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 4%
Italy 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Luxembourg 1 4%
Unknown 21 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 44%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Philosophy 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,301,800
of 23,362,684 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,575
of 31,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,516
of 267,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#306
of 562 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,362,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 562 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.