Experiencing statistical information improves children's and adults' inferences.
Bayesian probability updating
Conjunction rule
Description–experience gap
Statistical intuitions
Journal
Psychonomic bulletin & review
ISSN: 1531-5320
Titre abrégé: Psychon Bull Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9502924
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
accepted:
16
02
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
1
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
How good are people's statistical intuitions? Recent research has highlighted that sequential experience of statistical information improves adults' statistical intuitions relative to situations where this information is described. Yet little is known about whether this is also the case for children's statistical intuitions. In a study with 100 children (8-11 years old) and 100 adults (19-35 years old), we found that sequentially experiencing statistical information improved both adults' and children's inferences in two paradigmatic reasoning problems: conjunction and Bayesian reasoning problems. Moreover, adults' statistical competencies when they learned statistical information through description were surpassed by children's inferences when they learned through experience. We conclude that experience of statistical information plays a key role in shaping children's reasoning under uncertainty-a conclusion that has important implications for education policy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35650464
doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02075-3
pii: 10.3758/s13423-022-02075-3
pmc: PMC9722856
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2302-2313Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Nov 27;104(48):19156-9
pubmed: 18025482
Cognition. 2009 Jul;112(1):97-104
pubmed: 19435629
Front Psychol. 2015 Aug 04;6:939
pubmed: 26300791
Can J Exp Psychol. 2005 Sep;59(3):168-78
pubmed: 16248496
Dev Psychol. 2012 Jan;48(1):192-203
pubmed: 21967563
Front Psychol. 2015 Aug 17;6:1194
pubmed: 26347676
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 May;17(3):631-651
pubmed: 34874213
J Exp Child Psychol. 2008 Jan;99(1):18-36
pubmed: 17920617
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Jul;14(4):499-509
pubmed: 31185184
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Psychol Sci. 2010 Jul;21(7):960-9
pubmed: 20525915
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Jun;150(6):1041-1070
pubmed: 33119349
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):638-652
pubmed: 27325166
Psychol Bull. 2018 Feb;144(2):140-176
pubmed: 29239630
Mem Cognit. 2017 Feb;45(2):245-260
pubmed: 27826953
Can J Exp Psychol. 2008 Sep;62(3):188-91
pubmed: 18778147
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Oct;100(10):1882-1889
pubmed: 28526191
Cognition. 2014 Apr;131(1):60-8
pubmed: 24440657
Psychol Bull. 2021 Jun;147(6):535-564
pubmed: 34843298
Dev Psychol. 2021 Feb;57(2):241-252
pubmed: 33539130
Cognition. 2006 Jan;98(3):287-308
pubmed: 16399266
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Aug;140(3):434-63
pubmed: 21639669
Med Decis Making. 2017 Aug;37(6):670-679
pubmed: 28199179
Psychol Sci. 2019 Aug;30(8):1218-1233
pubmed: 31318637
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Dec;13(12):517-23
pubmed: 19836292
Curr Biol. 2018 Jun 18;28(12):1959-1963.e3
pubmed: 29861138
Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):325-44
pubmed: 17391661
Cognition. 2021 May;210:104580
pubmed: 33667974
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 1;105(13):5012-5
pubmed: 18378901
Psychol Bull. 2017 Dec;143(12):1273-1312
pubmed: 29048176
Nat Commun. 2020 Mar 3;11(1):828
pubmed: 32127523
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Jun;144(3):581-603
pubmed: 26030173
Cognition. 2017 Nov;168:164-175
pubmed: 28692831
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jul 22;111 Suppl 3:10818-25
pubmed: 25024182