Abstract：
Despite proportional information being ubiquitous, there is not a standard account of proportional reasoning. Part of the difficulty is that there are several apparent contradictions: in some contexts, proportion is easy and privileged, while in others it is difficult and ignored. One possibility is that although we see similarities across tasks requiring proportional reasoning, people approach them with different strategies. We test this hypothesis by implementing strategies computationally and quantitatively comparing them with Bayesian tools, using data from continuous (e.g., pie chart) and discrete (e.g., dots) stimuli and preschoolers, 2nd and 5th graders, and adults. Overall, people\'s comparisons of highly regular and continuous proportion are better fit by proportion strategy models, but comparisons of discrete proportion are better fit by a numerator comparison model. These systematic differences in strategies suggest that there is not a single, simple explanation for behavior in terms of success or failure, but rather a variety of possible strategies that may be chosen in different contexts.
摘要：
尽管比例信息无处不在，没有比例推理的标准账户。部分困难在于存在几个明显的矛盾：在某些情况下，比例是容易和特权的，而在其他人中，这是困难和被忽视的。一种可能性是，尽管我们看到需要比例推理的任务有相似之处，人们用不同的策略来对待他们。我们通过计算实施策略并将其与贝叶斯工具进行定量比较来检验这一假设，使用来自连续的数据(例如，饼图)和离散(例如，点)刺激和学龄前儿童，二年级和五年级的学生，和成年人。总的来说,人们对高度规律性和连续性比例的比较通过比例策略模型更好地拟合，但是离散比例的比较可以通过分子比较模型更好地拟合。这些系统性的策略差异表明，没有一个单一的，用成功或失败来简单解释行为，而是可以在不同的环境中选择各种可能的策略。
