scholarly journals Learning how to “make a deal”: Human (Homo sapiens) and monkey (Macaca mulatta) performance when repeatedly faced with the Monty Hall Dilemma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily D. Klein ◽  
Theodore A. Evans ◽  
Natasha B. Schultz ◽  
Michael J. Beran
Keyword(s):  
Macaca Mulatta ◽  
Homo Sapiens ◽  
Monty Hall Dilemma ◽  
Monty Hall

Working Memory Capacity and a Notorious Brain Teaser

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim De Neys ◽  
Niki Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Secondary Task ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Task Load ◽  
Normative Reasoning ◽  
Monty Hall Dilemma ◽  
Monty Hall ◽  
Memory Resources

Abstract. The Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD) is an intriguing example of the discrepancy between people’s intuitions and normative reasoning. This study examines whether the notorious difficulty of the MHD is associated with limitations in working memory resources. Experiment 1 and 2 examined the link between MHD reasoning and working memory capacity. Experiment 3 tested the role of working memory experimentally by burdening the executive resources with a secondary task. Results showed that participants who solved the MHD correctly had a significantly higher working memory capacity than erroneous responders. Correct responding also decreased under secondary task load. Findings indicate that working memory capacity plays a key role in overcoming salient intuitions and selecting the correct switching response during MHD reasoning.

scholarly journals Responses to Modified Monty Hall Dilemmas in Capuchin Monkeys, Rhesus Macaques, and Humans

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Watzek ◽  
Will Whitham ◽  
David A. Washburn ◽  
Sarah F. Brosnan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rhesus Macaques ◽  
The Other ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Capuchin Monkeys ◽  
Monty Hall Dilemma ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Monty Hall ◽  
Text Version ◽  
Switch Strategy

The Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD) is a simple probability puzzle famous for its counterintuitive solution. Participants initially choose among three doors, one of which conceals a prize. A different door is opened and shown not to contain the prize. Participants are then asked whether they would like to stay with their original choice or switch to the other remaining door. Although switching doubles the chances of winning, people overwhelmingly choose to stay with their original choice. To assess how experience and the chance of winning affect decisions in the MHD, we used a comparative approach to test 264 college students, 24 capuchin monkeys, and 7 rhesus macaques on a nonverbal, computerized version of the game. Participants repeatedly experienced the outcome of their choices and we varied the chance of winning by changing the number of doors (three or eight). All species quickly and consistently switched doors, especially in the eight-door condition. After the computer task, we presented humans with the classic text version of the MHD to test whether they would generalize the successful switch strategy from the computer task. Instead, participants showed their characteristic tendency to stick with their pick, regardless of the number of doors. This disconnect between strategies in the classic version and a repeated nonverbal task with the same underlying probabilities may arise because they evoke different decision-making processes, such as explicit reasoning versus implicit learning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document