Surprises: low probabilities or high contrasts?

Outcome expectations can be expressed prospectively in terms of probability estimates, and retrospectively in terms of surprise. Surprise ratings and probability estimates differ, however, in some important ways. Surprises are generally created by low-probability outcomes, yet, as shown by several experiments, not all low-probability outcomes are equally surprising. To account for surprise, we propose a contrast hypothesis according to which the level of surprise associated with an outcome is mainly determined by the extent to which it contrasts with the default, expected alternative. Three ways by which contrasts can be established are explored: contrasts due to relative probabilities, where the obtained outcome is less likely than a default alternative; contrasts formed by novelty and change, where a contrast exists between the obtained outcome and the individual's previous experience; and contrasts due to the perceptual or conceptual distance between the expected and the obtained. In all these cases, greater contrast was accompanied by higher ratings of surprise.     

Probability judgment accuracy for general knowledge. Cross-national differences and assessment methods

In this study we compare the probability judgment accuracy of subjects from the United States and Turkey. Three different response modes were employed — numerical probabilities, pie diagrams, and odds. The questions employed in the study were restricted to two-alternative, general-knowledge items. The observed pattern of differences in the components of probability judgment accuracy paralleled those of studies that have compared Western and Asian subjects. In particular, Turkish subjects exhibited better discrimination but worse calibration than their US counterparts. This result persisted across all three response modes. These findings lend support to previous assertions that observed cross-national differences arise from socioeconomic rather than Asian versus Western cultural differences. However, the consistency of the observed differences across response modes refutes a previous assertion that observed cultural differences are merely the result of response bias.     

Individual differences in reverse Hindsight bias: I never thought something like chernobyl would happen. Did I?

Hindsight bias was studied in the context of the accident in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which took place on April 26th 1986. An individual difference factor which relates to the motivation to process information, need for cognition, was expected to moderate the occurrence of hindsight bias. Probability estimates of many casualties due to the use of nuclear power in The Netherlands were obtained from 212 individuals two months before the accident in Chernobyl. These estimates were compared with similar estimates made in hindsight by the same individuals five months after the accident. Loglinear Analyses reveal a systematic hindsight bias. However, the direction of the bias was contrary to expectations. In hindsight, individuals gave lower probabilities than they actually did two months before the Chernobyl accident. These results reveal a reverse hindsight bias. As hypothesized, need for cognition moderates hindsight bias: individuals low and medium in need for cognition express a systematic reverse hindsight bias, while individuals high in need for cognition do not. High need for cognition individuals also show higher literal consistency between the two measurements, which supports a memory explanation of the moderating effect of need for cognition.     

Weak Bayesian coherentism

Recent results in probability theory have cast doubt on coherentism, purportedly showing (a) that coherence among a set of beliefs cannot raise their probability unless individual beliefs have some independent credibility, and (b) that no possible measure of coherence makes coherence generally probability-enhancing. I argue that coherentists can reject assumptions on which these theorems depend, and I derive a general condition under which the concurrence of two information sources lacking individual credibility can raise the probability of what they report.     

Partitions and Conditionals

The literature on conditionals is rife with alternate formulations of the abstract semantics of conditional logic. Each formulation has its own advantages in terms of applications and generalizations; nevertheless, they are for the most part equivalent, in the sense that they underwrite the same range of logical systems. The purpose of the present note is to bring under this umbrella the partition semantics introduced by Brian Skyrms in (Skyrms, 1984).     

Adding possibilities can reduce the Gambler's Fallacy: A naïve-probability paradox

This paper reports a novel paradox of intuitive probabilistic reasoning detected in naïve reasoners’ responses in two separate experiments where we manipulated the number of sets (or possibilities) of the problem keeping constant the probability of the critical set. Experiment 1 showed that the incidence of the Gambler's Fallacy (GF) was reduced when the number of sets was increased. In Experiment 2, a reduction of the GF also occurred but, more importantly, the percentage of correct responses of the participants increased when three sets of possibilities instead of two were used. Therefore, both Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that an increase in the extensional complexity of a problem can, under certain circumstances, lead to facilitation. These results support the importance of the extensional features in solving chance problems and are consistent with the model theory of reasoning.     

Transitive and pseudo-transitive inferences

Given that A is longer than B, and that B is longer than C, even 5-year-old children can infer that A is longer than C. Theories of reasoning based on formal rules of inference invoke simple axioms ("meaning postulates") to capture such transitive inferences. An alternative theory proposes instead that reasoners construct mental models of the situation described by the premises in order to draw such inferences. An unexpected consequence of the model theory is that if adult reasoners construct simple models of typical situations, then they should infer transitive relations where, in certain cases, none exists. We report four studies corroborating the occurrence of these "pseudo-transitive" fallacies. Experiment 1 established that individuals' diagrams of certain non-transitive relations yield transitive conclusions. Experiment 2 showed that these premises also give rise to fallacious transitive inferences. Experiment 3 established that when the context suggested alternatives to the simple models, the participants made fewer errors. Experiment 4 showed that tense is an important aspect of meaning which affects whether individuals draw transitive conclusions. We discuss the implications of these results for various theories of reasoning.     

Objective Bayesianism with predicate languages

Objective Bayesian probability is often defined over rather simple domains, e.g., finite event spaces or propositional languages. This paper investigates the extension of objective Bayesianism to first-order logical languages. It is argued that the objective Bayesian should choose a probability function, from all those that satisfy constraints imposed by background knowledge, that is closest to a particular frequency-induced probability function which generalises the λ = 0 function of Carnap’s continuum of inductive methods.     

How our brains reason logically

The aim of this article is to strengthen links between cognitive brain research and formal logic. The work covers three fundamental sorts of logical inferences: reasoning in the propositional calculus, i.e. inferences with the conditional “if...then”, reasoning in the predicate calculus, i.e. inferences based on quantifiers such as “all”, “some”, “none”, and reasoning with n-place relations. Studies with brain-damaged patients and neuroimaging experiments indicate that such logical inferences are implemented in overlapping but different bilateral cortical networks, including parts of the fronto-temporal cortex, the posterior parietal cortex, and the visual cortices. I argue that these findings show that we do not use a single deterministic strategy for solving logical reasoning problems. This account resolves many disputes about how humans reason logically and why we sometimes deviate from the norms of formal logic.

Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Event structure or updating disruption?

According to event cognition theory, people segment experience into separate event models. One consequence of this segmentation is that when people transport objects from one location to another, memory is worse than if people move across a large location. In two experiments participants navigated through a virtual environment, and recognition memory was tested in either the presence or the absence of a location shift for objects that were recently interacted with (i.e., just picked up or set down). Of particular concern here is whether this location updating effect is due to (a) differences in retention intervals as a result of the navigation process, (b) a temporary disruption in cognitive processing that may occur as a result of the updating processes, or (c) a need to manage multiple event models, as has been suggested in prior research. Experiment 1 explored whether retention interval is driving this effect by recording travel times from the acquisition of an object and the probe time. The results revealed that travel times were similar, thereby rejecting a retention interval explanation. Experiment 2 explored whether a temporary disruption in processing is producing the effect by introducing a 3-second delay prior to the presentation of a memory probe. The pattern of results was not affected by adding a delay, thereby rejecting a temporary disruption account. These results are interpreted in the context of the event horizon model, which suggests that when there are multiple event models that contain common elements there is interference at retrieval, which compromises performance.     

Source reliability and the conjunction fallacy

Information generally comes from less than fully reliable sources. Rationality, it seems, requires that one take source reliability into account when reasoning on the basis of such information. Recently, Bovens and Hartmann (2003) proposed an account of the conjunction fallacy based on this idea. They show that, when statements in conjunction fallacy scenarios are perceived as coming from such sources, probability theory prescribes that the "fallacy" be committed in certain situations. Here, the empirical validity of their model was assessed. The model predicts that statements added to standard conjunction problems will change the incidence of the fallacy. It also predicts that statements from reliable sources should yield an increase in fallacy rates (relative to unreliable sources). Neither the former (Experiment 1) nor the latter prediction (Experiment 3) was confirmed, although Experiment 2 showed that people can derive source reliability estimates from the likelihood of statements in a manner consistent with the tested model. In line with the experimental results, model fits and sensitivity analyses also provided very little evidence in favor of the model. This suggests that Bovens and Hartmann's present model fails to explain fully people's judgements in standard conjunction fallacy tasks.     

Reasoning about evidence

Bayesians understand the notion of evidential support in terms of probability raising. Little is known about the logic of the evidential support relation, thus understood. We investigate a number of prima facie plausible candidate logical principles for the evidential support relation and show which of these principles the Bayesian evidential support relation does and which it does not obey. We also consider the question which of these principles hold for a stronger notion of evidential support.     

Expertise in biological conceptions: The case of the vineyard

To study how expertise impacts the understanding of a complex system like the vineyard, three measures were used with 259 participants (190 non-experts, 34 winemakers and/or winegrowers, and 35 biologists): a questionnaire to check for expertise (the Plant Biology Questionnaire), a task about the Structure, Behaviour and Function model, and a measure of the content of the participants’ discourse with the ALCESTE software. Results showed that biologists mentioned functions significantly more often than behaviours, whereas it was the opposite for winegrowers. Non-experts mentioned functions and behaviours significantly less frequently than experts did. The content analysis confirmed the differential expression of each kind of expertise: scientific wording for biologists, technical wording for winegrowers, and words focused on perceptible structures for the non-experts. Results from all tasks were highly correlated and allowed for an interpretation of expertise in terms of mental models of the vineyard.     

The wording of conclusions in relational reasoning

Literature on relational reasoning mainly focuses on the performance question. It is typically argued that problem difficulty relies on the number of "mental models" compatible with the problem. However, no study has ever investigated the wording of conclusions that participants formulate. In the present work, we analyze the relational terms that people use in drawing conclusions from spatial relation problems (A is to the left of B, B is to the left C, D is in front of A, E is in front C, What is the relation between D and E?). We observed a general preference for expressing conclusions with 'left' rather than conclusions with 'right'. We also found that three factors had an influence on the wording of the conclusions: the linguistic form of premises, the question type and the presentation format. On the other hand, the number of models and premise order did not affect the wording of conclusions. Our study shows that the type of conclusion produced provides a new key to identifying the mental processes involved in spatial reasoning. Implications for the two main approaches to reasoning processes (i.e. the analogical and the propositional approaches) are discussed.     

Avoiding certain frustration, reflection, and the cable guy paradox

We discuss the cable guy paradox, both as an object of interest in its own right and as something which can be used to illuminate certain issues in the theories of rational choice and belief. We argue that a crucial principle—The Avoid Certain Frustration (ACF) principle—which is used in stating the paradox is false, thus resolving the paradox. We also explain how the paradox gives us new insight into issues related to the Reflection principle. Our general thesis is that principles that base your current opinions on your current opinions about your future opinions need not make reference to the particular times in the future at which you believe you will have those opinions, but they do need to make reference to the particular degrees of belief you believe you will have in the future.