References
- 1*Baratgin, J., & Politzer, G. (2010). Updating: A psychologically basic situation of probability revision. Thinking & Reasoning, 16, 253–287. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2010.519564
- 2Batanero, C., & Sanchez, E. (2005).
What is the nature of high school students’ conceptions and misconceptions about probability? In: Jones, G. A. (ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning, 241–266. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/0-387-24530-8_11 - 3Boninger, D. S., Gleicher, F., & Strathman, A. (1994). Counterfactual thinking: From what might have been to what may be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 297–307. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.297
- 4*Burns, B. D., & Wieth, M. (2003). Causality and reasoning: The Monty Hall dilemma. Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference of the cognitive science society, 198–203. Retrieved from:
http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2003/pdfs/57.pdf . - 5*Burns, B. D., & Wieth, M. (2004). The collider principle in causal reasoning: Why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 434–449. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.434
- 6Cooper, H. M. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). London, England: Sage.
- 7Cross, C. B. (2000). A characterization of imaging in terms of popper functions. Philosophy of Science, 67, 316–338. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/188727 . DOI: 10.1086/392778 - 8de Cooman, G., & Zaffalon, M. (2004). Updating beliefs with incomplete observations. Artificial Intelligence, 159, 75–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2004.05.006
- 9*De Neys, W. (2005). Smarter and richer?: Executive processing and the Monty Hall dilemma. Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual conference of the cognitive science society, 285–290. Retrieved from:
http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/papers/paper131.pdf . - 10De Neys, W. (2007).
Developmental trends in decision making: The case of the Monty Hall dilemma . In: Elsworth, J. A. (ed.), Psychology of decision making in education, behavior and high risk situations, 271–281. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. - 11*De Neys, W., & Verschueren, N. (2006). Working memory capacity and a notorious brain teaser. The case of the Monty Hall dilemma. Experimental Psychology, 53, 123–131. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.123
- 12*DiBattista, D. (2011). Evaluation of a digital learning object for the Monty Hall dilemma. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 53–59. DOI: 10.1177/0098628310390916
- 13*Efendic, E., & Drace, S. (2015). The influence of affect on suboptimal strategy choice in he Monty Hall dilemma. Psihologija, 48, 135–147. DOI: 10.2298/PSI1502135E
- 14*Fox, C. R., & Levav, J. (2004). Partition-edit-count: Naive extensional reasoning in judgment of conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 626–642. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.626
- 15*Franco-Watkins, A. M., Derks, P. L., & Dougherty, M. R. P. (2003). Reasoning in the Monty Hall problem: Examining choice behaviour and probability judgements. Thinking & Reasoning, 9, 67–90. DOI: 10.1080/13546780244000114
- 16Friedman, D. (1998). Monty Hall’s three doors: Construction and deconstruction of a choice anomaly. The American Economic Review, 88, 933–946. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/117012 . - 17Garfield, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basis concepts in statistics: Implications for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 44–63. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/749110 . DOI: 10.2307/749110 - 18Garfield, J. B. (2003). Assessing statistical reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal, 2(1), 22–38. Retrieved from:
http://iase-web.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ2(1).pdf#page=24 . - 19Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- 20Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases”. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83–115. DOI: 10.1080/14792779143000033
- 21Gigerenzer, G. (1994).
Why the distinction between single event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa) . In: Wright, G., & Ayton, P. (eds.), Subjective probability, 129–161. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. - 22Gilovich, T., Medvec, T. G., & Chen, S. (1995). Commission, omission, and dissonance reduction: Coping with regret in the “Monty Hall” problem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 182–190. DOI: 10.1177/0146167295212008
- 23Granberg, D. (1999a). Cross-cultural comparison of responses to the Monty Hall dilemma. Social Behavioral and Personality, 27, 431–438. DOI: 10.2224/sbp.1999.27.4.431
- 24Granberg, D. (1999b). A new version of the Monty Hall Dilemma with unequal probabilities. Behavioural Processes, 48, 25–34. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00066-2
- 25Granberg, D., & Brown, T. A. (1995). The Monty Hall dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 711–723. DOI: 10.1177/0146167295217006
- 26Granberg, D., & Dorr, N. (1998). Further exploration of two-stage decision making in the Monty Hall dilemma. American Journal of Psychology, 111, 561–579. DOI: 10.2307/1423551
- 27Herbranson, W. T. (2012). Pigeons, humans, and the Monty Hall dilemma. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 297–301. DOI: 10.1177/0963721412453585
- 28*Herbranson, W. T., & Schroeder, J. (2010). Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall dilemma. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 124, 1–13. DOI: 10.1037/a0017703
- 29*Herbranson, W. T., & Wang, S. (2014). Testing the limits of optimality: The effect of base rates in the Monty Hall dilemma. Learning & Behavior, 42, 69–82. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-013-0126-6
- 30*Hirao, T., Murphy, T. I., & Masaki, H. (2016). Stimulus-preceding negativity represents a conservative response tendency. NeuroReport, 27, 80–84. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0000000000000495
- 31*Hirao, T., Murphy, T. I., & Masaki, H. (2017). Brain activities associated with learning of the Monty Hall dilemma task. Psychophysiology, 54, 1359–1369. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12883
- 32*Howard, J. N., Lambdin, C. G., & Datteri, D. L. (2007). Let’s make a deal: Quality and availability of second-stage information as a catalyst for change. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 248–272. DOI: 10.1080/13546780600848049
- 33*Idson, L. C., Chugh, D., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Moran, S., Grosskopf, B., & Bazerman, M. (2004). Overcoming focusing failures in competitive environments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 159–172. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.467
- 34Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- 35*Klein, E. D., Evans, T. A., Schultz, N. B., & Beran, M. J. (2013). Learning how to “make a deal”: Human (Homo sapiens) and monkey (Macaca mulatta) performance when repeatedly faced with the Monty Hall dilemma. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127, 103–108. DOI: 10.1037/a0029057
- 36*Krauss, S., & Wang, X. T. (2003). The psychology of the Monty Hall problem: Discovering psychological mechanisms for solving a tenacious brain teaser. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 3–22. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.3
- 37Landman, J. (1987). Regret and elation following action and inaction: Affective responses to positive versus negative outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 524–536. DOI: 10.1177/0146167287134009
- 38Lecoutre, M.-P. (1992). Cognitive models and problem spaces in “purely random” situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 557–568. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3482885 . DOI: 10.1007/BF00540060 - 39*Mazur, J. E., & Kahlbaugh, P. E. (2012). Choice behavior of pigeons (Columba livia), college students, and preschool children (Homo sapiens) in the Monty Hall dilemma. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126, 407–420. DOI: 10.1037/a0028273
- 40Patt, A. G., Bowles, H. R., & Cash, D. W. (2006). Mechanisms for enhancing the credibility of an adviser: Prepayment and aligned incentives. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 347–359. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.532
- 41*Petrocelli, J. V. (2013). Pitfalls of counterfactual thinking in medical practice: Preventing errors by using more functional reference points. Journal of Public Health Research, 24, 136–143. DOI: 10.4081/jphr.2013.e24
- 42*Petrocelli, J. V., & Harris, A. K. (2011). Learning inhibition in the Monty Hall problem: The role of dysfunctional counterfactual prescriptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1297–1311. DOI: 10.1177/0146167211410245
- 43Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133–148. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133
- 44*Saenen, L., Heyvaert, M., Van Dooren, W., & Onghena, P. (2015a). Inhibitory control in a notorious brain teaser: the Monty Hall dilemma. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 837–848. DOI: 10.1007/s11858-015-0667-6
- 45*Saenen, L., Van Dooren, W., & Onghena, P. (2015b). A randomized Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 176–192. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2014.918562
- 46Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992).
Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions . In: Grouws, D. A. (ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 465–494. New York: Macmillan. - 47Shimojo, S., & Ichikawa, S. (1989). Intuitive reasoning about probability: Theoretical and experimental analyses of the “problem of three prisoners”. Cognition, 32, 1–24. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90012-7
- 48Siddiqi, H. (2009). Is the lure of choice reflected in market prices? Experimental evidence based on the 4-door Monty Hall problem. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 203–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2008.07.004
- 49*Slembeck, T., & Tyran, J.-R. (2004). Do institutions promote rationality? An experimental study of the three-door anomaly. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54, 337–350. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.03.002
- 50*Stibel, J. M., Dror, I. E., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2009). The collapsing choice theory: Dissociating choice and judgment in decision making. Theory and Decision, 66, 149–179. DOI: 10.1007/s11238-007-9094-7
- 51Stohl, H. (2005).
Probability in teacher education and development . In: Jones, G. A. (ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning, 345–366. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/0-387-24530-8_15 - 52*Tubau, E. (2008). Enhancing probabilistic reasoning: The role of causal graphs, statistical format and numerical skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 187–196. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.006
- 53Tubau, E., Aguilar-Lleyda, D., & Johnson, E. D. (2015). Reasoning and choice in the Monty Hall dilemma (MHD): implications for improving Bayesian reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00353
- 54*Tubau, E., & Alonso, D. (2003). Overcoming illusory inferences in a probabilistic counterintuitive problem: The role of explicit representations. Memory and Cognition, 31, 596–607. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196100