In their research articles, scholars often use 2 x 2 tables or tree diagrams including natural frequencies in order to illustrate Bayesian reasoning situations to their peers. Interestingly, the effect of these visualizations on participants’ performance has not been tested empirically so far (apart from explicit training studies). In the present article, we report on an empirical study (3 x 2 x 2 design) in which we systematically vary visualization (no visualization vs. 2 x 2 table vs. tree diagram) and information format (probabilities vs. natural frequencies) for two contexts (medical vs. economical context; not a factor of interest). Each of N = 259 participants (students of age 16-18) had to solve two typical Bayesian reasoning tasks (“mammography problem” and “economics problem”). The hypothesis is that 2 x 2 tables and tree diagrams – especially when natural frequencies are included – can foster insight into the notoriously difficult structure of Bayesian reasoning situations. In contrast to many other visualizations (e. g., icon arrays, Euler diagrams), 2 x 2 tables and tree diagrams have the advantage that they can be constructed easily. The implications of our findings for teaching Bayesian reasoning will be discussed.

In the present paper we empirically investigate the psychometric properties of some of the most famous statistical and logical cognitive illusions from the “heuristics and biases” research program by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who nearly 50 years ago introduced fascinating brain teasers such as the famous Linda problem, the Wason card selection task, and so-called Bayesian reasoning problems (e.g., the mammography task). In the meantime, a great number of articles has been published that empirically examine single cognitive illusions, theoretically explaining people’s faulty thinking, or proposing and experimentally implementing measures to foster insight and to make these problems accessible to the human mind. Yet these problems have thus far usually been empirically analyzed on an individual-item level only (e.g., by experimentally comparing participants’ performance on various versions of one of these problems). In this paper, by contrast, we examine these illusions as a group and look at the ability to solve them as a psychological construct. Based on an sample ofN= 2,643 Luxembourgian school students of age 16–18 we investigate the internal psychometric structure of these illusions (i.e., Are they substantially correlated? Do they form a reflexive or a formative construct?), their connection to related constructs (e.g., Are they distinguishable from intelligence or mathematical competence in a confirmatory factor analysis?), and the question of which of a person’s abilities can predict the correct solution of these brain teasers (by means of a regression analysis).

For more than 20 years, research has proven the beneficial effect of natural frequencies when it comes to solving Bayesian reasoning tasks (Gigerenzer and Hoffrage, 1995). In a recent meta-analysis, McDowell and Jacobs (2017) showed that presenting a task in natural frequency format increases performance rates to 24% compared to only 4% when the same task is presented in probability format. Nevertheless, on average three quarters of participants in their meta-analysis failed to obtain the correct solution for such a task in frequency format. In this paper, we present an empirical study on what participants typically do wrong when confronted with natural frequencies. We found that many of them did not actually use natural frequencies for their calculations, but translated them back into complicated probabilities instead. This switch from the intuitive presentation format to a less intuitive calculation format will be discussed within the framework of psychological theories (e.g., the Einstellung effect).

In medicine, diagnoses based on medical test results are probabilistic by nature. Unfortunately, cognitive illusions regarding the statistical meaning of test results are well documented among patients, medical students, and even physicians. There are two effective strategies that can foster insight into what is known as Bayesian reasoning situations: (1) translating the statistical information on the prevalence of a disease and the sensitivity and the false-alarm rate of a specific test for that disease from probabilities into natural frequencies, and (2) illustrating the statistical information with tree diagrams, for instance, or with other pictorial representation. So far, such strategies have only been empirically tested in combination for “1-test cases”, where one binary hypothesis (“disease” vs. “no disease”) has to be diagnosed based on one binary test result (“positive” vs. “negative”). However, in reality, often more than one medical test is conducted to derive a diagnosis. In two studies, we examined a total of 388 medical students from the University of Regensburg (Germany) with medical “2-test scenarios”. Each student had to work on two problems: diagnosing breast cancer with mammography and sonography test results, and diagnosing HIV infection with the ELISA and Western Blot tests. In Study 1 (N = 190 participants), we systematically varied the presentation of statistical information (“only textual information” vs. “only tree diagram” vs. “text and tree diagram in combination”), whereas in Study 2 (N = 198 participants), we varied the kinds of tree diagrams (“complete tree” vs. “highlighted tree” vs. “pruned tree”). All versions were implemented in probability format (including probability trees) and in natural frequency format (including frequency trees). We found that natural frequency trees, especially when the question-related branches were highlighted, improved performance, but that none of the corresponding probabilistic visualizations did.

In teaching statistics in secondary schools and at university, two visualizations are primarily used when situations with two dichotomous characteristics are represented: 2 × 2 tables and tree diagrams. Both visualizations can be depicted either with probabilities or with frequencies. Visualizations with frequencies have been shown to help students significantly more in Bayesian reasoning problems than probability visualizations do. Because tree diagrams or double-trees (which are largely unknown in school) are node-branch structures, these two visualizations (in contrast to the 2 × 2 table) can even simultaneously display probabilities on branches and frequencies inside the nodes. This is a teaching advantage as it allows the frequency concept to be used to better understand probabilities. However, 2 × 2 tables and (double-)trees have a decisive disadvantage: While joint probabilities [e.g., P(A∩B)] are represented in 2 × 2 tables but no conditional probabilities [e.g., P(A|B)], it is exactly the other way around with (double-)trees. Therefore, a visualization that is equally suitable for the representation of joint probabilities and conditional probabilities is desirable. In this article, we present a new visualization—the frequency net—in which all absolute frequencies and all types of probabilities can be depicted. In addition to a detailed theoretical analysis of the frequency net, we report the results of a study with 249 university students that shows that “net diagrams” can improve reasoning without previous instruction to a similar extent as 2 × 2 tables and double-trees. Regarding questions about conditional probabilities, frequency visualizations (2 × 2 table, double-tree, or net diagram with absolute frequencies) are consistently superior to probability visualizations, and the frequency net performs as well as the frequency double-tree. Only the 2 × 2 table with frequencies—the one visualization that participants were already familiar with—led to higher performance rates. If, on the other hand, a question about a joint probability had to be answered, all implemented visualizations clearly supported participants’ performance, but no uniform format effect becomes visible. Here, participants reached the highest performance in the versions with probability 2 × 2 tables and probability net diagrams. Furthermore, after conducting a detailed error analysis, we report interesting error shifts between the two information formats and the different visualizations and give recommendations for teaching probability.