Base-rate neglect is a persistent phenomenon in which subjects do not place sufficient weight on the probabilities of occurrence of relevant events. Two experiments with college students support the hypothesis that base-rate neglect may be minimized by providing base-rate training in the absence of case, or witness, cues, prior to introducing (or reintroducing) these cues. In Experiment 1, the hypothesis was supported by both within-subjects and between-groups assessments; in Experiment 2, the hypothesis was supported while the effects of instructions and a correction procedure were found to be minimal. In Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2, training with case cues present also reduced base-rate neglect, but this effect was not sufficient to account for the effect of cue-absent base-rate training. Correction trials led some subjects to detect that the task contingencies were random; however, neither this nor actually telling subjects after the experiment that the task was indeed random led invariably to subjects' describing the optimal strategy (which was to choose the richer alternative exclusively).