The effects of base rate neglect on sequential belief updating and real-world beliefs
Fig 4
Replication in study 2 of results from study 1.
(a, b) Mean final estimate difference as a function of evidence asymmetry for the low and high PDI groups independently (S18 and S19 Tables). Solid lines and shaded regions reflect the mean and SEM of the weighted Bayesian model fits. The center inset shows the exponential fit of the distribution of PDI global scores from study 1 (grey line) and study 2 (black line), indicating the cutoffs for high and low PDI by vertical dashed lines. (c, d) Logit-belief updates as a function of logit prior by bead ratio for the low (c; S20 Table) and high (d; S21 Table) PDI groups. Group medians of individual medians for logit-belief updates are shown and other conventions follow Fig 3C. Solid lines and shaded regions reflect medians and 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals of the weighted Bayesian model fits. (e) Evidence asymmetry slopes are plotted against ω1 by group. Other conventions as in Fig 3E. Marginal violin plots show the group medians and interquartile ranges. The asterisk indicates a significant rank-sum test comparing group medians of ω1. (f) Mean final estimate differences are plotted against ω1. The marginal violin plot shows the group medians and interquartile ranges. (e, f) The solid black line shows model predictions as in Fig 2E and 2F. As in Fig 3, after excluding outliers [52] (ω1<0.82; 11 outliers), the correlation between ω1 and the evidence asymmetry slope was still significant (ρ = -0.37, p = 1.08 x 10−4), as was the correlation between ω1 and the mean final estimate difference (ρ = -0.47, p = 7.32 x 10−7).