Structural mapping in statistical word problems: A relational reasoning approach to Bayesian inference.
Presenting natural frequencies facilitates Bayesian inferences relative to using percentages. Nevertheless, many people, including highly educated and skilled reasoners, still fail to provide Bayesian responses to these computationally simple problems. We show that the complexity of relational reasoning (e.g., the structural mapping between the presented and requested relations) can help explain the remaining difficulties. With a non-Bayesian inference that required identical arithmetic but afforded a more direct structural mapping, performance was universally high. Furthermore, reducing the relational demands of the task through questions that directed reasoners to use the presented statistics, as compared with questions that prompted the representation of a second, similar sample, also significantly improved reasoning. Distinct error patterns were also observed between these presented- and similar-sample scenarios, which suggested differences in relational-reasoning strategies. On the other hand, while higher numeracy was associated with better Bayesian reasoning, higher-numerate reasoners were not immune to the relational complexity of the task. Together, these findings validate the relational-reasoning view of Bayesian problem solving and highlight the importance of considering not only the presented task structure, but also the complexity of the structural alignment between the presented and requested relations.
Department of Basic Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. eric.johnson@ub.edu.|IR3C, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. eric.johnson@ub.edu.
Eric D
ED
Johnson
Department of Basic Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.|IR3C, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Elisabet
E
Tubau
D001499:Bayes Theorem; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008128:Logic; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics; D011340:Problem Solving; D055815:Young Adult
Bayesian inference; Natural frequencies; Numeracy; Question form; Relational reasoning; Structural mapping
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Feb;144(1):127-50
25384162
Behav Brain Sci. 1998 Dec;21(6):803-31; discussion 831-64
10191879
Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Feb;21(1):198-204
23794254
Mem Cognit. 2002 Mar;30(2):171-8
12035879
Mem Cognit. 1987 Jul;15(4):332-40
3670053
Front Psychol. 2015 Jul 27;6:938
26283976
Behav Brain Sci. 2007 Jun;30(3):241-54; discussion 255-97
17963533
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Nov;14(11):497-505
20884275
Cognition. 2001 Mar;78(3):247-76
11124351
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Aug;136(3):430-50
17696692
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):12-5
24842952
Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Feb;22(1):258-64
24825305
Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Oct;22(5):1465-73
25711182
Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):37-44
11206945
Cognition. 2000 Dec 15;77(3):197-213
11018509
Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 31;6:340
25873904