Abstract
The inverse base rate effect (IBRE; Medin & Edelson, 1988) continues to be a puzzling case of decision making on the basis of conflicting information in human category learning. After being trained via feedback over trials to assign combinations of cues to high- and low-frequency categories, participants tend to respond with the low-frequency category to an otherwise perfectly conflicting pair of test cues, contrary to the category base rates. Our Experiment 1 demonstrated that decision making on the basis of an explicit summary of the cue-outcome and outcome base rate information from the standard learning task does not result in the effect. The remaining experimental conditions evaluated the necessary and sufficient conditions for the effect by systematically exploring experimental deviations between the standard learning task and the pure decision-making task. In partial disagreement with both recent theoretical accounts of the effect (Juslin, Wennerholm, & Winman, 2001; Kruschke, 1996), these experiments indicate that asymmetric outcome representation and profound base rate neglect are individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. Broader theoretical implications are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1990).The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., &Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning.Psychological Review,105, 442–481.
Binder, A., &Estes, W. K. (1966). Transfer of response in visual recognition situations as a function of frequency values.Psychological Monographs: General & Applied,80, 1–26.
Bohil, C. J., Markman, A. B., &Maddox, W. T. (2005). A featuresalience analogue of the inverse base-rate effect.Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving,15, 17–28.
Erickson, M. A., &Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 107–140.
Fagot, J., Kruschke, J. K., Dépy, D., &Vauclair, J. (1998). Associative learning in baboons (Papio papio) and humans (Homo sapiens): Species differences in learned attention to visual features.Animal Cognition,1, 123–133.
Gluck, M. A. (1992). Stimulus sampling and distributed representations in adaptive network theories of learning. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.),Essays in honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 1, pp. 169–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gluck, M. A., &Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 227–247.
Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P., &Winman, A. (2001). High-level reasoning and base-rate use: Do we need cue-competition to explain the inverse base-rate effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 849–871.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction.Psychological Review,80, 237–251.
Kalish, M. L. (2001). An inverse base rate effect with continuously valued stimuli.Memory & Cognition,29, 587–597.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.Psychological Review,99, 22–44.
Kruschke, J. K. (1996). Base rates in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 3–26.
Kruschke, J. K. (2001). The inverse base-rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1385–1400.
Kruschke, J. K. (2003). Attentional theory is a viable explanation of the inverse base-rate effect: A reply to Winman, Wennerholm, and Juslin (2003).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 1396–1400.
Kruschke, J. K., Kappenman, E. S., &Hetrick, W. P. (2005). Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 830–845.
Markman, A. B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck and Bower (1988).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 417–421.
Medin, D. L., &Bettger, J. G. (1991). Sensitivity to changes in baserate information.American Journal of Psychology,104, 311–332.
Medin, D. L., &Edelson, S. M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 68–85.
Medin, D. L., &Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification.Psychological Review,85, 207–238.
Myers, J. L., Lohmeier, J. H., &Well, A. D. (1994). Modeling probabilistic categorization data: Exemplar memory and connectionist nets.Psychological Science,5, 83–89.
Nelson, M. W. (1993). The effects of error frequency and accounting knowledge on error diagnosis in analytical review.Accounting Review,68, 804–824.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 104–114.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 39–57.
Shanks, D. R. (1992). Connectionist accounts of the inverse base-rate effect in categorization.Connection Science,4, 3–18.
Shanks, D. R., &Darby, R. J. (1998). Feature- and rule-based generalization in human associative learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,24, 405–415.
Wickens, T. D. (1989).Multiway contingency tables analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Winman, A., Wennerholm, P., &Juslin, P. (2003). Can attentional theory explain the inverse base-rate effect? Comment on Kruschke (2001).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 1390–1395.
Winman, A., Wennerholm, P., Juslin, P., &Shanks, D. R. (2005). Evidence for rule-based processes in the inverse base-rate effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 789–815.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant RES-000-23-0024 from the United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johansen, M.K., Fouquet, N. & Shanks, D.R. Paradoxical effects of base rates and representation in category learning. Memory & Cognition 35, 1365–1379 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193608
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193608