↓ Skip to main content

Comprehension and computation in Bayesian problem solving

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comprehension and computation in Bayesian problem solving
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00938
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric D. Johnson, Elisabet Tubau

Abstract

Humans have long been characterized as poor probabilistic reasoners when presented with explicit numerical information. Bayesian word problems provide a well-known example of this, where even highly educated and cognitively skilled individuals fail to adhere to mathematical norms. It is widely agreed that natural frequencies can facilitate Bayesian inferences relative to normalized formats (e.g., probabilities, percentages), both by clarifying logical set-subset relations and by simplifying numerical calculations. Nevertheless, between-study performance on "transparent" Bayesian problems varies widely, and generally remains rather unimpressive. We suggest there has been an over-focus on this representational facilitator (i.e., transparent problem structures) at the expense of the specific logical and numerical processing requirements and the corresponding individual abilities and skills necessary for providing Bayesian-like output given specific verbal and numerical input. We further suggest that understanding this task-individual pair could benefit from considerations from the literature on mathematical cognition, which emphasizes text comprehension and problem solving, along with contributions of online executive working memory, metacognitive regulation, and relevant stored knowledge and skills. We conclude by offering avenues for future research aimed at identifying the stages in problem solving at which correct vs. incorrect reasoners depart, and how individual differences might influence this time point.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 12 27%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 48%
Mathematics 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 3 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,949,230
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,602
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,704
of 264,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#178
of 566 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 566 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.