Broadening the study of inductive reasoning: confirmation judgments with uncertain evidence

The Effect of Evidential Impact on Perceptual Probabilistic Judgments

In a series of three behavioral experiments, we found a systematic distortion of probability judgments concerning elementary visual stimuli. Participants were briefly shown a set of figures that had two features (e.g., a geometric shape and a color) with two possible values each (e.g., triangle or circle and black or white). A figure was then drawn, and participants were informed about the value of one of its features (e.g., that the figure was a "circle") and had to predict the value of the other feature (e.g., whether the figure was "black" or "white"). We repeated this procedure for various sets of figures and, by varying the statistical association between features in the sets, we manipulated the probability of a feature given the evidence of another (e.g., the posterior probability of hypothesis "black" given the evidence "circle") as well as the support provided by a feature to another (e.g., the impact, or confirmation, of evidence "circle" on the hypothesis "black"). Results indicated that participants' judgments were deeply affected by impact, although they only should have depended on the probability distributions over the features, and that the dissociation between evidential impact and posterior probability increased the number of errors. The implications of these findings for lower and higher level cognitive models are discussed.

Strategies for selecting and evaluating information

Within the domain of psychology, Optimal Experimental Design (OED) principles have been used to model how people seek and evaluate information. Despite proving valuable as computational-level methods to account for people's behaviour, their descriptive and explanatory powers remain largely unexplored. In a series of experiments, we used a naturalistic crime investigation scenario to examine how people evaluate queries, as well as outcomes, in probabilistic contexts. We aimed to uncover the psychological strategies that people use, not just to assess whether they deviated from OED principles. In addition, we explored the adaptiveness of the identified strategies across both one-shot and stepwise information search tasks. We found that people do not always evaluate queries strictly in OED terms and use distinct strategies, such as by identifying a leading contender at the outset. Moreover, we identified aspects of zero-sum thinking and risk aversion that interact with people's information search strategies. Our findings have implications for building a descriptive account of information seeking and evaluation, accounting for factors that currently lie outside the realm of information-theoretic OED measures, such as context and the learner's own preferences.

Judging the Probability of Hypotheses Versus the Impact of Evidence: Which Form of Inductive Inference Is More Accurate and Time-Consistent?

Inductive reasoning requires exploiting links between evidence and hypotheses. This can be done focusing either on the posterior probability of the hypothesis when updated on the new evidence or on the impact of the new evidence on the credibility of the hypothesis. But are these two cognitive representations equally reliable? This study investigates this question by comparing probability and impact judgments on the same experimental materials. The results indicate that impact judgments are more consistent in time and more accurate than probability judgments. Impact judgments also predict the direction of errors in probability judgments. These findings suggest that human inductive reasoning relies more on estimating evidential impact than on posterior probability.

Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood

This paper draws a connection between statistical word association measures used in linguistics and confirmation measures from epistemology. Having theoretically established the connection, we replicate, in the new context of the judgments of word co-occurrence, an intriguing finding from the psychology of reasoning, namely that confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood. We show that the effect, despite being based in this case on very subtle statistical insights about thousands of words, is stable across three different experimental settings. Our theoretical and empirical results suggest that factors affecting traditional reasoning tasks are also at play when linguistic knowledge is probed, and they provide further evidence for the importance of confirmation in a new domain.

Insensitivity and Oversensitivity to Answer Diagnosticity in Hypothesis Testing

Two experiments examined how people perceive the diagnosticity of different answers (“yes” and “no”) to the same question. We manipulated whether the “yes” and the “no” answers conveyed the same amount of information or not, as well as the presentation format of the probabilities of the features inquired about. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with only the percentages of occurrence of the features, which most straightforwardly apply to the diagnosticity of “yes” answers. In Experiment 2, participants received in addition the percentages of the absence of features, which serve to assess the diagnosticity of “no” answers. Consistent with previous studies, we found that participants underestimated the difference in the diagnosticity conveyed by different answers to the same question. However, participants' insensitivity was greater when the normative (Bayesian) diagnosticity of the “no” answer was higher than that of the “yes” answer. We also found oversensitivity to answer diagnosticity, whereby participants valued as differentially diagnostic two answers that were normatively equal in terms of their diagnosticity. Presenting to participants the percentages of occurrence of the features inquired about together with their complements increased their sensitivity to the diagnosticity of answers. We discuss the implications of these findings for confirmation bias in hypothesis testing.