Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1999 Mar;71(2):155–169. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-155

Base rates versus sample accuracy: competition for control in human matching to sample.

A S Goodie 1, E Fantino 1
PMCID: PMC1284698  PMID: 10220928

Abstract

People often place undue weight on specific sources of information (case cues) and insufficient weight on more global sources (base rates) even when the latter are highly predictive, a phenomenon termed base-rate neglect. This phenomenon was first demonstrated with paper-and-pencil tasks, and also occurs in a matching-to-sample procedure in which subjects directly experience case sample (cue) accuracy and base rates, and in which discrete, nonverbal choices are made. In two nonverbal experiments, subjects were exposed to hundreds of trials in which they chose between two response options that were both probabilistically reinforced. In Experiment 1, following one of two possible samples (the unpredictive sample), either response was reinforced with a .5 probability. The other sample (predictive) provided reinforcement for matching on 80% of the trials in one condition but in only 20% of the trials in another condition. Subjects' choices following the unpredictive sample were determined primarily by the contingencies in effect for the predictive sample: If matching was reinforced following the predictive sample, subjects tended to match the unpredictive sample as well; if countermatching the predictive sample was generally reinforced, subjects tended to countermatch the unpredictive sample. These results demonstrate only weak control by base rates. In Experiment 2, base rates and sample accuracy were simultaneously varied in opposite directions to keep one set of conditional probabilities constant. Subjects' choices were determined primarily by the overall accuracy of the sample, again demonstrating only weak control by base rates. The same pattern of choice occurred whether this pattern increased or decreased rate of reinforcement. Together, the results of the two experiments provide a clear empirical demonstration of base-rate neglect.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (183.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Casscells W., Schoenberger A., Graboys T. B. Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. N Engl J Med. 1978 Nov 2;299(18):999–1001. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197811022991808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Davison M. C., Tustin R. D. The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):331–336. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Estes W. K., Campbell J. A., Hatsopoulos N., Hurwitz J. B. Base-rate effects in category learning: a comparison of parallel network and memory storage-retrieval models. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Jul;15(4):556–571. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.4.556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fantino E. Behavior analysis and decision making. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 May;69(3):355–364. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gluck M. A., Bower G. H. From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Sep;117(3):227–247. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.117.3.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goodie A. S., Fantino E. Learning to commit or avoid the base-rate error. Nature. 1996 Mar 21;380(6571):247–249. doi: 10.1038/380247a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hartl J., Dougherty D., Wixted J. Separating The Effects Of Trial-specific And Average Sample-stimulus Duration In Delayed Matching To Sample In Pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Sep;66(2):231–242. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.66-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):107–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kehoe E. J. Connectionist models of conditioning: A tutorial. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Nov;52(3):427–440. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.52-427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nosofsky R. M., Kruschke J. K., McKinley S. C. Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Mar;18(2):211–233. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.18.2.211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  12. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shanks D. R. Connectionism and the learning of probabilistic concepts. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1990 May;42(2):209–237. doi: 10.1080/14640749008401219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Silberberg A., Murray P., Christensen J., Asano T. Choice in the repeated-gambles experiment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Sep;50(2):187–195. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. White K. G. Characteristics of forgetting functions in delayed matching to sample. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Jul;44(1):15–34. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wright A. A., Delius J. D. Scratch and match: pigeons learn matching and oddity with gravel stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1994 Jan;20(1):108–112. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Zentall T. R., Hogan E. Same/different concept learning in the pigeon: the effect of negative instances and prior adaptation to transfer stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):177–186. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES