IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/minsoc/v14y2015i1p1-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The natural frequency hypothesis and evolutionary arguments

Author

Listed:
  • Yuichi Amitani

Abstract

In the rationality debate, Gerd Gigerenzer and his colleagues have argued that human’s apparent inability to follow probabilistic principles does not mean our irrationality, because we can do probabilistic reasoning successfully if probability information is given in frequencies, not percentages (the natural frequency hypothesis). They also offered an evolutionary argument to this hypothesis, according to which using frequencies was evolutionarily more advantageous to our hominin ancestors than using percentages, and this is why we can reason correctly about probabilities in the frequency format. This paper offers a critical review of this evolutionary argument. I show that there are reasons to believe using the frequency format was not more adaptive than using the standard (percentage) format. I also argue that there is a plausible alternative explanation (the nested-sets hypothesis) for the improved test performances of experimental subjects—one of Gigerenzer’s key explananda—which undermines the need to postulate mental mechanisms for probabilistic reasoning tuned to the frequency format. The explanatory thrust of the natural frequency hypothesis is much less significant than its advocates assume. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Yuichi Amitani, 2015. "The natural frequency hypothesis and evolutionary arguments," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:minsoc:v:14:y:2015:i:1:p:1-19
    DOI: 10.1007/s11299-014-0155-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11299-014-0155-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11299-014-0155-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:140-152 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sloman, Steven A. & Over, David & Slovak, Lila & Stibel, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Frequency illusions and other fallacies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 296-309, July.
    3. Andrea Polonioli, 2012. "Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ against the heuristics and biases program: an assessment," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(2), pages 133-148, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard B. Anderson & Laura Marie Leventhal & Don C. Zhang & Daniel Fasko, Jr. & Zachariah Basehore & Christopher Gamsby & Jared Branch & Timothy Patrick, 2019. "Belief bias and representation in assessing the Bayesian rationality of others," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:140-152 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    5. Shira Elqayam & David Over, 2012. "Probabilities, beliefs, and dual processing: the paradigm shift in the psychology of reasoning," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(1), pages 27-40, June.
    6. Zhiyong Yang & Ritesh Saini & Traci Freling, 2015. "How Anxiety Leads to Suboptimal Decisions Under Risky Choice Situations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1789-1800, October.
    7. Jeffrey Stibel & Itiel Dror & Talia Ben-Zeev, 2009. "The Collapsing Choice Theory: Dissociating Choice and Judgment in Decision Making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 149-179, February.
    8. Christine Ohlert & Barbara Weißenberger, 2015. "Beating the base-rate fallacy: an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 51-80, April.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:108-117 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Maria Penna & Mirian Agus & Maribel Peró-Cebollero & Joan Guàrdia-Olmos & Eliano Pessa, 2014. "The use of imagery in statistical reasoning by university undergraduate students: a preliminary study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 173-187, January.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:226-242 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mary Kynn, 2008. "The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(1), pages 239-264, January.
    13. Andreas Glöckner & Christoph Engel, 2013. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 230-252, June.
    14. William P. Neace & Steven Michaud & Lauren Bolling & Kate Deer & Ljiljana Zecevic, 2008. "Frequency formats, probability formats, or problem structure? A test of the nested-sets hypothesis in an extensional reasoning task," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 140-152, February.
    15. Shahar Ayal & Ruth Beyth-Marom, 2014. "The effects of mental steps and compatibility on Bayesian reasoning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(3), pages 226-242, May.
    16. André C. R. Martins, 2006. "Probability biases as Bayesian inference," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 108-117, November.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Goodwin, Paul, 2015. "When simple alternatives to Bayes formula work well: Reducing the cognitive load when updating probability forecasts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1686-1691.
    19. Baratgin, Jean, 2009. "Updating our beliefs about inconsistency: The Monty-Hall case," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 67-95, January.
    20. Theresa Büchter & Andreas Eichler & Nicole Steib & Karin Binder & Katharina Böcherer-Linder & Stefan Krauss & Markus Vogel, 2022. "How to Train Novices in Bayesian Reasoning," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-31, May.
    21. Andrea Polonioli, 2012. "Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ against the heuristics and biases program: an assessment," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(2), pages 133-148, December.
    22. Sprenger, Amber & Dougherty, Michael R., 2006. "Differences between probability and frequency judgments: The role of individual differences in working memory capacity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 202-211, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:minsoc:v:14:y:2015:i:1:p:1-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.