A pragmatic approach to the ratio bias

Passerini, G.; Sala,; D’Addario, M; Macchi, L; Bagassi, Maria

doi:10.1037/e722292011-181

Cited by 7 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Descriptive analysis showed that denominator neglect was strongest in case of the 8% probability. Although only three Jellybean tasks (three choices) were used, the results were consistent with the findings from other studies (e.g., Dale et al, 2007;Lefebvre et al, 2009;Passerini et al, 2012). The second hypothesis was that lower cognitive ability and/or lower motive for rational integration predict denominator neglect (suboptimal choices).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Our findings were similar to the findings of Dale et al (2007), Lefebvre et al (2009) and Passerini et al (2012).…”

Section: Subjection To the Denominator Neglectsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…First, a similar extent of a Table 2 Optimal and suboptimal choices in JBT denominator neglect as in previous studies (e.g., Dale et al, 2007;Lefebvre, Vieider, & Villeval, 2009;Passerini et al, 2012) was hypothesized. Descriptive analysis showed that denominator neglect was strongest in case of the 8% probability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…My first hypothesis was that future teachers neglect the denominator to a similar extent as it was reported in other studies (optimal and suboptimal choices of different probabilities were compared). For example, Lefebvre, Vieider, and Villeval (2009) found that 47% of participants (41% in research of Dale, Schwarz, Rudski, and Smith (2007)) selected the suboptimal choice, and Passerini et al (2012) state that 61% of participants chose the urn with 9% probability and 40% of participants the urn with 7% probability of winning, compared to the urn with 10% probability.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This phenomenon is not rare; it is called denominator neglect, or ratio-bias phenomenon (in the present study I use the term denominator neglect). Denominator neglect is focusing on relative frequencies of numerators (Reyna & Brainerd, 2008), paying attention to numerators (number of times an event has happened) and inadequate attention to denominators (overall number of opportunities for an event to happen) (e.g., GarciaRetamero, Galesic, & Gigerenzer, 2010;Okan, Garcia-Retamero, Cokely, & Maldonado, 2011;Passerini, Macchi, & Bagassi, 2012), for instance, whether nine winning lottery tickets is few or many depends on the overall number of lottery tickets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Denominator Neglect in Decision-Making

Mikušková

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ab stract: People often pay too mu ch attention to nu merators and inadequate a ttention to denominators, this phenomenon is called denominator neglect. The aim of the study was mapping of frequency of denominator neglect, comparison of results with results of other studies and examination of possible moderators of denominator neglect. In two studies a total of 533 participants complete the Jellybean task, Vienna Matrix Test, Master Rationality Motive Scale, Cognitive Reflection Test, and Rational-Experiential Inventory. Results show that 1) denominator neglect was strongest in case of 8% probability (regardless whether alternative probabilities were equal or unequal), 2) motivated participants made significantly less suboptimal choices than unmotivated participants, and 3) there was no effect of cognitive ability, motive for rational integration and experiential thinking disposition, but low cognitive reflection and rational thinking style predicted denominator neglect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Our findings were similar to the findings of Dale et al (2007), Lefebvre et al (2009) and Passerini et al (2012).…”

Section: Subjection To the Denominator Neglectsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Denominator Neglect in Decision-Making

Mikušková

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Distinguishing the Ratio Bias from Unsystematic Error: Situation and Individual‐difference Effects

Stone

Parker

Townsend

2018

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often perceive the occurrence of events to be less likely when the likelihood of the event is expressed in ratios consisting of smaller numbers versus larger numbers, an effect known as the ratio bias. This work presents a theoretical framework for the conditions that need to be met for the ratio bias to occur. In doing so, we contrast effects on the ratio bias to those on unsystematic error, which have often been confounded in previous research. We find that the ratio bias is weaker (1) when both sets of numbers are relatively large than when both sets of numbers are relatively small; (2) for scenarios involving lottery tickets than for scenarios involving drawing balls from a bin; and (3) when a physical display depicting the numbers is provided to participants. Each of these factors reduced the ratio bias without reducing unsystematic error. Additionally, we show that unsystematic error is lower among people who (1) reason on the basis of proportions rather than on the basis of the numerator and denominator individually; (2) score higher on the rational scale of the Rational-Experiential Inventory; and (3) are of higher numeracy. We use these results to distinguish causes of error generally from those on the ratio bias specifically and discuss the implications for our understanding of when the ratio bias occurs.

show abstract

Is there more than one ratio bias? If so, why?

Bourdin¹,

Engin

Vetschera

2021

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ratio bias refers to decision makers' propensity to overestimate probabilities that are specified as ratios of large numbers in comparison to a ratio of smaller numbers (e.g., 9:100 vs. 1:10). To reconcile conflicting findings about this bias, we study such deviations in a more general setting allowing for deviations in both directions, irrational indifference, and inability to decide. We find that the predominant direction of deviations depends on the probabilities involved and that there is no uniform bias in favor of high numbers across all settings. Our findings indicate a strong negative impact of risk literacy on all such bias phenomena. We also test the relationship of the ratio bias to rational/experiential system theory and find that, contrary to the theoretical predictions, biased responses tend to take longer time than logically correct answers.

show abstract

A pragmatic approach to the ratio bias

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

The Denominator Neglect in Decision-Making

The Denominator Neglect in Decision-Making

Distinguishing the Ratio Bias from Unsystematic Error: Situation and Individual‐difference Effects

Is there more than one ratio bias? If so, why?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About