The problem is deeper than people just struggling with frequentist statistics. It's difficult IMHO to actually reason properly about frequentist results without also having a grounding in Bayesian statistics. For example, in the Gigerenzer et al. paper cited above, to properly understand why statement #6 is false, a person has to understand that they've confused p(D|H0) with 1 – p(D). That's why it's not surprising IMHO that cookbook approaches to frequentist statistics without a nontrivial Bayesian component, as are often found in social science-focused stats courses, inevitably end up with limited or skewed comprehension.