Abstract
In this paper we argue that it is often adaptive to use one’s background beliefs
when interpreting information that, from a normative point of view, is incomplete.
In both of the experiments reported here participants were presented with an item
possessing two features and were asked to judge, in the light of some evidence
concerning the features, to which of two categories it was more likely that the item
belonged. It was found that when participants received evidence relevant to just
one of these hypothesised categories (i.e. evidence that did not form a Bayesian
likelihood ratio) they used their background beliefs to interpret this information. In
Experiment 2, on the other hand, participants behaved in a broadly Bayesian
manner when the evidence they received constituted a completed likelihood ratio.
We discuss the circumstances under which participants, when making their judgements,
consider the alternative hypothesis. We conclude with a discussion of the
implications of our results for an understanding of hypothesis testing, belief
revision, and categorisation.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 97-124 |
Number of pages | 28 |
Journal | Thinking & Reasoning |
Volume | 6 |
Publication status | Published - 2000 |