Intuitive Strategies and Preconceptions about Association in Contingency Tables

The aim of this research was to identify students' preconceptions concerning statistical association in contingency tables. An experimental study was carried out with 213 preuniversity students, and it was based on students' responses to a written questionnaire including 2 x 2, 2 x 3, and 3 x 3 contingency tables. In this article, the students' judgments of association and solution strategies are compared with the findings of previous psychological research on 2 x 2 contingency tables. We also present an original classification of students' strategies, from a mathematical point of view. Correspondence analysis is used to show the effect of item task variables on students' strategies. Finally, we include a qualitative analysis of the strategies of 51 students, which has served to characterize three misconceptions concerning statistical association.

[1]  Gerard Vercnaud,et al.  Cognitive and Developmental Psychology and Research in Mathematics Education: some theoretical and methodological issues * , 1982 .

[2]  J. A. Castro,et al.  Concepciones iniciales sobre la asociación estadística , 1995 .

[3]  G. Murphy,et al.  The utility of theories in intuitive statistics: The robustness of theory-based judgments. , 1984 .

[4]  K. Pearson.  NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF CORRELATION , 1920 .

[5]  Hal R. Arkes,et al.  Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. , 1983 .

[6]  Ruth Beyth-Marom,et al.  Perception of correlation reexamined , 1982 .

[7]  Roland W. Scholz,et al.  Psychological Research in Probabilistic Understanding , 1991 .

[8]  Maurice G. Kendall,et al.  Studies in the history of statistics and probability: A series of papers , 1972 .

[9]  R. Clarke,et al.  Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis , 1985 .

[10]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  JUDGMENT OF CONTINGENCY BETWEEN RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES. , 1965, Psychological monographs.

[11]  R. Nisbett,et al.  The psychometrics of everyday life , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments , 1982 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[14]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence , 1983 .

[15]  Jennifer Crocker,et al.  Judgment of Covariation by Social Perceivers , 1981 .

[16]  L. J. Chapman,et al.  Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. , 1969, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[17]  L. Alloy,et al.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. , 1984 .

[18]  Joan Garfield,et al.  Difficulties in Learning Basic Concepts in Probability and Statistics: Implications for Research. , 1988 .

[19]  J. Smedslund.  THE CONCEPT OF CORRELATION IN ADULTS , 1963 .

[20]  J. Confrey.  A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science, and Programming , 1990 .

[21]  R. Brennan.  Elements of generalizability theory , 1983 .

[22]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .