Fundamental-attribution-error training effects did not transfer to independent out-context posttests¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A mixed ANOVA on out-context FAE scores found no significant main effects of Test Moment, Training or Context and no interactions. → Poos 2017

Evidence¶

Poos 2017¶

Poos, J., van den Bosch, K. & Janssen, C.P. (2017). Battling bias: Effects of training and training context. Computers & Education, vol. 111, pp. 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.004

q3 · i? · causal · r2

A 2 (Test Moment) x 2 (Context) x 2 (Training) mixed ANOVA on the FAE out-context test (translated from Dunbar et al., 2014; three participants excluded due to an administration error) found no significant effects; equivalence was not tested. The authors note the in-context and out-context FAE tasks differed in narrative richness and question phrasing, which may explain the failed transfer.

"No signi ficant main effect was found for Test Moment ( F (1,76) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ 0.16). Moreover, no signi ficant main effects were found for Training ( F (1,76) ¼ 0.17,p ¼ 0.68), or for Context ( F (1,76) ¼ 0.14, p ¼ 0.71). In addition, no interaction effects were found (all ps > 0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Critical-reflective thinking training reduces the tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error on in-context measurements during murder case two — related
• Training in critical-reflective thinking produced no change on the Cognitive Reflection Test — related
• Contrasting examples, correct examples, erroneous examples, and practice problems produced no differences in learning gains or transfer of unbiased-reasoning skills — related
• Training did not reduce confirmation bias on in-context measurements embedded in the second murder case — related