Abstract
The general objective of this article is to contribute to the limited research on teachers’ probabilistic knowledge. More specifically, this article aims to contribute to an established thread of research that investigates relative likelihood comparisons. To meet these objectives, prospective mathematics teachers were presented two different answer keys to a ten question multiple-choice quiz and were asked to determine and justify which of the two was least likely to occur. Unlike previous research, this article does not employ the representativeness heuristic, but, instead, utilizes the attribute substitution model—which stems from the genericism of the heuristics and biases program—to account for specific responses to relative likelihood comparisons. This new perspective demonstrates that certain individuals, when presented one question, answer a different question instead. Results demonstrate that participants substitute a variety of heuristic attributes instead of making the intended relative likelihood comparison of the answer keys presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamson, D. (2008). Bridging theory: Activities designed to support the grounding of outcome-based combinatorial analysis in event-based intuitive judgment—a case study. In M. Borovcnik & D. Pratt (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress on mathematical education (ICME 11). Monterrey, Mexico: ICME.
Abrahamson, D. (2009a). A student’s synthesis of tacit and mathematical knowledge as a researcher’s lens on bridging learning theory. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(3), 195–226. Retrieved from http://www.iejme.com/032009/IEJME_p01_Abrahamson_E.pdf.
Abrahamson, D. (2009b). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning-the case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 175–224.
Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 73–106). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Chernoff, E. J. (2008). Sample space: An investigative lens. In J. Cortina (Ed.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the International Group and the North American Chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 313–320). Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico.
Chernoff, E. J. (2009a). Sample space partitions: An investigative lens. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 19–29.
Chernoff, E. J. (2009b). The subjective-sample-space. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 628–635). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
Chernoff, E. J. (2011). Investigating relative likelihood comparisons of multinomial, contextual sequences. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 755–765). Poland: University of Rzeszów.
Cohen, J., & Hansel, C. E. M. (1958). The nature of decisions in gambling. Acta Psychologica, 13(24), 357–370.
Cox, C., & Mouw, J. T. (1992). Disruption of the representativeness heuristic: Can we be perturbed into using correct probabilistic reasoning? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(2), 163–178.
Fischbein, E. (1975). The intuitive sources of probabilistic thinking in children. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Dual-processes in the psychology of mathematics education and cognitive psychology. Human Development, 52(2), 95–108.
Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. (2002). Introduction—Heuristics and biases: Then and Now. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hirsch, L. S., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2001). Representativeness in statistical reasoning: Identifying and assessing misconceptions. Journal of Statistics Education, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v9n2/hirsch.html.
Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (2005). An overview of research into the learning and teaching of probability. In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 65–92). New York: Springer.
Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realties. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 909–955). New York: Macmillan.
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice (Nobel Prize Lecture), In T. Frangsmyr (Ed.) Les Prix Nobel. Retrieved from http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.
Konold, C., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., Lohmeier, J., & Lipson, A. (1993). Inconsistencies in students’ reasoning about probability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(5), 392–414.
Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2006). The rationality debate: Application of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 105–126.
Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs. analytical thinking: Four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 263–278.
Lipton, P. (1991). Inference to best explanation. New York: Routledge.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). Principles of philosophy. In C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in students (L. Leake, Jr., P. Burrell, & H. D. Fischbein, Trans.). New York: Norton (Original work published 1951).
Rubel, L. H. (2007). Middle school and high school students’ probabilistic reasoning on coin tasks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(5), 531–556.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (1977). Misconceptions of probability: An experiment with a small-group, activity-based, model building approach to introductory probability at the college level. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8, 285–316.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (1981). Misconceptions of probability: From systematic errors to systematic experiments and decisions. In A. Schulte (Ed.), Teaching statistics and probability: Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 90–100). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 465–494). New York: Macmillan.
Stohl, H. (2005). Probability in teacher education and development. In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 345–366). New York: Springer.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–770.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.
Tzur, R. (2011). Can dual processing theories of thinking inform conceptual learning in mathematics? The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(3), 597–636.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chernoff, E.J. Recognizing revisitation of the representativeness heuristic: an analysis of answer key attributes. ZDM Mathematics Education 44, 941–952 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0435-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0435-9