The Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) is a remarkably difficult probability problem with a counterintuitive solution. Undergraduate students used an interactive digital learning object that provided a set-based, animated explanation of the solution to the MHD and let them play games designed to increase understanding of the solution. More than 60% of users could explain the solution to the classic three-door version of the MHD and generalized the solution to an extremely difficult six-door version of the game. Because the MHD has relevance to important aspects of science in general and psychology in particular, some instructors may find the learning object, which is freely available at www.brocku.ca/psychology/people/dibattista.htm, to be of substantial value in their teaching.
BaumannP. (2005). Three doors, two players, and single-case probabilities. American Philosophical Quarterly, 42, 71–79.
2.
BrinthauptT. M.PilatiM. L.KingB. R. (2008). Psychology teaching resources in the MERLOT digital learning objects catalog. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 240–245.
3.
BrokawA. J.MerzT. E. (2004). Active learning with Monty Hall in a game theory class. Journal of Economic Education, 35, 259–268.
4.
BurnsB. D.WiethM. (2004). The collider principle in causal reasoning: Why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 434–449.
DiBattistaD.DarlingJ. (2007). [Variations on the Monty Hall problem]. Unpublished raw data.
9.
DiBattistaD.LaurenceM. (2006, August). Switch or stay? A learning object for the Monty Hall dilemma. Paper presented at the 2006 MERLOT International Conference, Ottawa, Canada.
10.
EganL. C.SantosL. R.BloomP. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 978–983.
11.
EisenhauerJ. G. (2000). The Monty Hall matrix. Teaching Statistics, 22, 17–20.
12.
FalkR. (1992). A closer look at the probabilities of the notorious three prisoners. Cognition, 43, 197–223.
13.
FalkR.LannA. (2008). The allure of equality: Uniformity in probabilistic and statistical judgment. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 293–334.
14.
FoxC. R.LevavJ. (2004). Partition-edit-count: Naive extensional reasoning in judgment of conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 626–642.
15.
Franco-WatkinsA. M.DerksP. L.DoughertyM. R. P. (2003). Reasoning in the Monty Hall problem: Examining choice behaviour and probability judgements. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 67–90.
GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GranbergD. (1999). A new version of the Monty Hall dilemma with unequal probabilities. Behavioural Processes, 48, 25–34.
19.
GranbergD.BrownT. A. (1995). The Monty Hall dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 711–723.
20.
GranbergD.DorrN. (1998). Further exploration of two-stage decision making in the Monty Hall dilemma. American Journal of Psychology, 111, 561–579.
21.
GriffinD.TverskyA. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435.
22.
JongM. S. Y.ShangJ.LeeF.-L.LeeJ. H. M. (2008). Harnessing computer games in education. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 6, 1–9.
23.
KayR. H.KnaackL. (2008). An examination of the impact of learning objects in secondary school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 447–461.
24.
KelleyM. R. (2004). Demonstrating the Monty Hall dilemma. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 193–195.
25.
KohnA. (1992). Defying intuition: Demonstrating the importance of the empirical technique. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 217–219.
26.
KraussS.WangX. T. (2003). The psychology of the Monty Hall problem: Discovering psychological mechanisms for solving a tenacious brain teaser. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 3–22.
27.
LilienfeldS. O. (2005). The 10 commandments of helping students distinguish science from pseudoscience in psychology. APS Observer, 18(9):39–51.
28.
OexleK. (2006). Useful probability considerations in genetics: The goat problem with tigers and other applications of Bayes' theorem. European Journal of Pediatrics, 165, 299–305.
29.
OverwayK. (2007). Empirical evidence or intuition? An activity involving the scientific method. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 606–608.
30.
PageS. E. (1998). Let’s make a deal. Economics Letters, 61, 175–180.
31.
PaleyJ. (2005). Error and objectivity: Cognitive illusions and qualitative research. Nursing Philosophy, 6, 196–209.
32.
RosenhouseJ. (2009). The Monty Hall problem. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
RoundD. K. (2007). Doing a Monty: Who opened the door to this game for economists?Journal of Economic Education, 38, 248–252.
34.
SelvinS. (1975). A problem in probability. American Statistician, 29, 67.
35.
ShaughnessyJ. M.DickT. (1991). Monty’s dilemma: Should you stick or switch?Mathematics Teacher, 84, 252–256.
TubauE.AlonsoD. (2003). Overcoming illusory inferences in a probabilistic counterintuitive problem: The role of explicit representations. Memory and Cognition, 31, 596–607.
38.
vos SavantM. (1996). The power of logical thinking. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
39.
WiethM.BurnsB. D. (2006). Incentives improve performance on both incremental and insight problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1378–1394.
40.
YatesJ. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
