Let's Make a Deal: Quality and availability of second-stage information as a catalyst for change

Howard, Jeffrey N.; Lambdin, Charles; Datteri, Darcee L.

doi:10.1080/13546780600848049

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, Howard, Lambdin, and Datteri (2007) showed the positive effect of highlighting the conditional nature of the chances involved in the MHD, given that one of the three doors is opened. The authors manipulated the visual access and representation of the non-winning item(s), assuming that making the second-stage information (such as in the classical MHD in which a non-winning door is opened) more salient would facilitate switching behaviour, especially if this second-stage information would be made more explicit by increasing the size of the non-winning item(s).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We believe this an important finding that warrants further research. As can be seen in Table 3, most studies only focused on behavioural MHD performance (De Neys, 2005; De Neys & Verschueren, 2006; DiBattista, 2011; Efendic & Drace, 2015; Herbranson & Schroeder, 2010; Herbranson & Wang, 2014; Howard et al, 2007; Idson et al, 2004; Klein et al, 2013; Mazur & Kahlbaugh, 2012; Petrocelli, 2013; Petrocelli & Harris, 2011; Slembeck & Tyran, 2004) and there is one article that only addressed participants’ probability judgments (Baratgin & Politzer, 2010). We encourage all researchers to include both behavioural responses and probability judgments as dependent variables in their future research (see Burns & Wieth, 2003, 2004; Fox & Levav, 2004; Franco-Watkins et al, 2003; Hirao et al, 2016, 2017; Krauss & Wang, 2003; Saenen et al, 2015a, 2015b; Stibel et al, 2009; Tubau, 2008; Tubau & Alonso, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review

Saenen¹,

Heyvaert²,

Dooren³

et al. 2018

Psychologica Belgica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) is a difficult brain teaser. We present a systematic review of literature published between January 2000 and February 2018 addressing why humans systematically fail to react optimally to the MHD or fail to understand it.Based on a sequential analysis of the phases in the MHD, we first review causes in each of these phases that may prohibit humans to react optimally and to fully understand the problem. Next, we address the question whether humans’ performance, in terms of choice behaviour and (probability) understanding, can be improved. Finally, we discuss individual differences related to people’s suboptimal performance.This review provides novel insights by means of its holistic approach of the MHD: At each phase, there are reasons to expect that people respond suboptimally. Given that the occurrence of only one cause is sufficient, it is not surprising that suboptimal responses are so widespread and people rarely understand the MHD.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review

Saenen¹,

Heyvaert²,

Dooren³

et al. 2018

Psychologica Belgica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, discovering the optimal choice in the MHD can be enhanced by changing the visual appearance of the final choice scenario or by manipulating the number of initial choices. For example, Howard et al (2007) found higher switching rates in a condition in which all the boxes (closed and open) were visible compared to a condition in which the null options were removed. Increasing the area of the closed boxes also had a significant effect, although smaller than the number-of-boxes manipulation.…”

Section: Learning To Choose Optimally In the Mhdmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reasoning and choice in the Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD): implications for improving Bayesian reasoning

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD) is a two-step decision problem involving counterintuitive conditional probabilities. The first choice is made among three equally probable options, whereas the second choice takes place after the elimination of one of the non-selected options which does not hide the prize. Differing from most Bayesian problems, statistical information in the MHD has to be inferred, either by learning outcome probabilities or by reasoning from the presented sequence of events. This often leads to suboptimal decisions and erroneous probability judgments. Specifically, decision makers commonly develop a wrong intuition that final probabilities are equally distributed, together with a preference for their first choice. Several studies have shown that repeated practice enhances sensitivity to the different reward probabilities, but does not facilitate correct Bayesian reasoning. However, modest improvements in probability judgments have been observed after guided explanations. To explain these dissociations, the present review focuses on two types of causes producing the observed biases: Emotional-based choice biases and cognitive limitations in understanding probabilistic information. Among the latter, we identify a crucial cause for the universal difficulty in overcoming the equiprobability illusion: Incomplete representation of prior and conditional probabilities. We conclude that repeated practice and/or high incentives can be effective for overcoming choice biases, but promoting an adequate partitioning of possibilities seems to be necessary for overcoming cognitive illusions and improving Bayesian reasoning.

show abstract

A randomised Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback

Saenen

Dooren

Onghena

2014

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) is a notorious probability problem with a counterintuitive solution. There is a strong tendency to stay with the initial choice, despite the fact that switching doubles the probability of winning. The current randomised experiment investigates whether feedback in a series of trials improves behavioural performance on the MHD and increases the level of understanding of the problem. Feedback was either conditional or non-conditional, and was given either in frequency format or in percentage format. Results show that people learn to switch most when receiving conditional feedback in frequency format. However, problem understanding does not improve as a consequence of receiving feedback. Our study confirms the dissociation between behavioural performance on the MHD, on one hand, and actual understanding of the MHD, on the other. We discuss how this dissociation can be understood.

show abstract

Let's Make a Deal: Quality and availability of second-stage information as a catalyst for change

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review

Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review

Reasoning and choice in the Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD): implications for improving Bayesian reasoning

A randomised Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About