Three studies provide convergent evidence that the inverse base-rate effect (Medin & Edelson, 1988) is mediated by rule-based cognitive processes. Experiment 1 shows that, in contrast to adults, prior to the formal operational stage most children do not exhibit the inverse base-rate effect. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrate that an adult sample is a mix of participants relying on associative processes who categorize according to the base-rate and participants relying on rule-based processes who exhibit a strong inverse base-rate effect. The distribution of the effect is bimodal, and removing participants independently classified as prone to rule-based processing effectively eliminates the inverse base-rate effect. The implications for current explanations of the inverse base-rate effect are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CookGLOdomRD (1992). Perception of multidimensional stimuli: A differential-sensitivity account of cognitive processing and development.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology54, 213–249.
2.
FagotJKruschkeJKDepyDVauclairJ (1998). Associative learning in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio Papio): Species differences in learned attention to visual features.Animal Cognition1, 123–133.
3.
GarnerWR (1970). The stimulus in information processing.American Psychologist25, 350–358.
4.
GarnerWR (1974). The processing of information and structurePotomac, MD:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5.
GluckMA (1992). Stimulus sampling and distributed representations in adaptive network theories of learning. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning theory to connectionist theory: Essays in honor of William K. Estes1, pp. 169–199Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6.
GluckMABowerGH (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 227–247.
7.
JuslinPWennerholmPWinmanA (2001). High-level reasoning or base-rate use: Do we need cue-competition to explain the inverse base-rate effect?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 849–871.
8.
KemlerDGSmithLB (1979). Assessing similarity and dimensional relations: Effects of integrality and separability on the discovery of complex concepts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General108, 133–150.
9.
KruschkeJK (1996). Base rates in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition1, 3–26.
10.
KruschkeJK (2001). The inverse base rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 1385–1400.
11.
KruschkeJKJohansenMK (1999). A model of probabilistic category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25, 1083–1119.
12.
LachnitHKimmelHD (1993). Positive and negative patterning in human classical skin conductance response conditioning.Animal Learning & Behaviour21, 314–326.
13.
MedinDLBettgerLG (1991). Sensitivity to changes in base-rate information.American Journal of Psychology104, 311–332.
14.
MedinDLEdelsonSM (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 68–85.
15.
MoshmanB (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology2, pp. 947–978New York:Wiley.
16.
PearceJM (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review94, 61–73.
ReberA (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledgeNew York:Oxford University Press.
19.
RescorlaRAWagnerAR (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and researchpp. 64–99New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
20.
ShanksDR (1992). Connectionist accounts of the inverse base-rate effect in categorization.Connection Science4, 3–18.
21.
ShanksDRDarbyRJ (1998). Feature- and rule-based generalization in human associative learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes24, 405–415.
22.
SmithLBKemlerDG (1977). Developmental trends in free classification: Evidence for a new conceptualization of perceptual development.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology24, 279–298.
23.
SmithLBKemlerDG (1978). Is there a developmental trend from integrality to separability in perception?.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology26, 498–507.
24.
SmithJDKemler NelsonDG (1984). Overall similarity in adults’ classification: The child in all of us.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General113, 137–159.
WinmanAWennerholmPJuslinP (2003). Can attentional theory explain the inverse base-rate effect? Comments on Kruschke (2001).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 390–1395.
