# Natural frequencies

by on 22 October 2010 · 2 comments

In my last post, I made a passing reference to Gerd Gigerenzer’s idea of using “natural frequencies” instead of probabilities to make assessing risks a little easier. My brief description of the idea did not really do justice to it, so here I will briefly outline an example from Gigerenzer’s book Reckoning With Risk.

The scenario posed is that you are conducting breast cancer screens using mammograms and you are presented with the following information and question about asymptomatic women between 40 and 50 who participate in the screening:

The probability that one of these women has breast cancer is 0.8%. If a woman has breast cancer, the probability is 90% that she will have a positive mammogram. If a woman does not have breast cancer, the probability is 7% that she will still have a positive mammogram. Imagine a woman who has a positive mammogram. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?

For those familiar with probability, this is a classic example of a problem that calls for the application of Bayes’ Theorem. However, for many people—not least doctors—it is not an easy question.

Gigerenzer posed exactly this problem to 24 German physicians with an average of 14 years professional experience, including radiologists, gynacologists and dermatologists. By far the most common answer was that there was a 90% chance she had breast cancer and the majority put the odds at 50% or more.

In fact, the correct answer is only 9% (rounding to the nearest %). Only two of the doctors came up with the correct answer, although two others were very close. Overall, a “success” rate of less than 20% is quite striking, particularly given that one would expect doctors to be dealing with these sorts of risk assessments on a regular basis.

Gigerenzer’s hypothesis was that an alternative formulation would make the problem more accessible. So, he posed essentially the same question to a different set of 24 physicians (from a similar range of specialties with similar experience) in the following way:

Eight out of every 1,000 women have breast cancer. Of these 8 women with breast cancer, 7 will have a positive mammogram. Of the remaining 992 women who don’t have breast cancer, some 70 will still have a positive mammogram. Imagine a sample of women who have positive mammograms in screening. How many of these women actually have breast cancer?

Gigerenzer refers to this type of formulation as using “natural frequencies” rather than probabilities. Astute observers will note that there are some rounding differences between this question and the original one (e.g. 70 out of 992 false positives is actually a rate of 7.06% not 7%), but the differences are small.

Now a bit of work has already been done here to help you on the way to the right answer. It’s not too hard to see that there will be 77 positive mammograms (7 true positives plus 70 false positives) and of these only 7 actually have breast cancer. So, the chances of someone in this sample of positive screens actually having cancer is 7/77 = 9% (rounding to the nearest %).

Needless to say, far more of the doctors who were given this formulation got the right answer. There were still some errors, but this time only 5 of the 24 picked a number over 50% (what were they thinking?).

The lesson is that probability is a powerful but confusing tool and it pays to think carefully about how to frame statements about risk if you want people to draw accurate conclusions.