Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35650464›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Experiencing statistical information improves children's and adults' inferences.

Christin Schulze, Ralph Hertwig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christin SchulzeCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany. cschulze@mpib-berlin.mpg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6572-3486
Ralph HertwigCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9908-9556

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How good are people's statistical intuitions? Recent research has highlighted that sequential experience of statistical information improves adults' statistical intuitions relative to situations where this information is described. Yet little is known about whether this is also the case for children's statistical intuitions. In a study with 100 children (8-11 years old) and 100 adults (19-35 years old), we found that sequentially experiencing statistical information improved both adults' and children's inferences in two paradigmatic reasoning problems: conjunction and Bayesian reasoning problems. Moreover, adults' statistical competencies when they learned statistical information through description were surpassed by children's inferences when they learned through experience. We conclude that experience of statistical information plays a key role in shaping children's reasoning under uncertainty-a conclusion that has important implications for education policy.

Indexed as

Problem SolvingAdultBayes TheoremChildHumansYoung AdultBayesian probability updatingConjunction ruleDescription–experience gapStatistical intuitions

Identifiers

PMID35650464
PMCPMC9722856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.