The desirability bias in personality-related syllogistic reasoning.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1111/sjop.12984
Nina Hadžiahmetović, Goran Opačić, Predrag Teovanović, Jadranka Kolenović-Đapo
{"title":"The desirability bias in personality-related syllogistic reasoning.","authors":"Nina Hadžiahmetović, Goran Opačić, Predrag Teovanović, Jadranka Kolenović-Đapo","doi":"10.1111/sjop.12984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The belief-bias effect is a tendency to evaluate syllogistic statements based on believability rather than on formal logic validity. Following this rationale, the study examines desirability bias as the tendency to evaluate syllogistic conclusions based on their desirability when reasoning is conducted on personality-relevant categorical syllogisms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For this purpose, 60 syllogisms were constructed based on the items of the Big Five questionnaire. Syllogisms were subsequently categorized as desirable (e.g., \"I empathize with others\") and undesirable (e.g., \"I am passive\") based on their conclusion. In each task, the second premise and the conclusion were formulated in the first person to increase a respondent's identification with the content. A total of 300 university students (M<sub>age</sub> = 20.08, SD = 2.02) participated in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A 2 (syllogism validity: valid, invalid) × 2 (syllogism desirability: desirable, undesirable) repeated measures ANOVA was employed. The analysis showed a greater tendency to accept desirable conclusions on valid syllogisms (valid desirable rather than valid undesirable) and reject undesirable conclusions on invalid syllogisms (invalid undesirable rather than invalid desirable).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings have implications for socially desirable responding in cognitive tasks, which may be further developed as a source of self-relevant content as well as for further extension of belief bias in the form of desirability bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12984","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The belief-bias effect is a tendency to evaluate syllogistic statements based on believability rather than on formal logic validity. Following this rationale, the study examines desirability bias as the tendency to evaluate syllogistic conclusions based on their desirability when reasoning is conducted on personality-relevant categorical syllogisms.

Methods: For this purpose, 60 syllogisms were constructed based on the items of the Big Five questionnaire. Syllogisms were subsequently categorized as desirable (e.g., "I empathize with others") and undesirable (e.g., "I am passive") based on their conclusion. In each task, the second premise and the conclusion were formulated in the first person to increase a respondent's identification with the content. A total of 300 university students (Mage = 20.08, SD = 2.02) participated in the study.

Results: A 2 (syllogism validity: valid, invalid) × 2 (syllogism desirability: desirable, undesirable) repeated measures ANOVA was employed. The analysis showed a greater tendency to accept desirable conclusions on valid syllogisms (valid desirable rather than valid undesirable) and reject undesirable conclusions on invalid syllogisms (invalid undesirable rather than invalid desirable).

Conclusion: These findings have implications for socially desirable responding in cognitive tasks, which may be further developed as a source of self-relevant content as well as for further extension of belief bias in the form of desirability bias.

人格相关三段论推理中的可取性偏差。
引言:信念偏差效应是一种倾向于基于可信度而不是形式逻辑有效性来评估三段论陈述。根据这一基本原理,本研究考察了可取性偏见,即当对与人格相关的直言三段论进行推理时,人们倾向于根据三段论结论的可取性来评估三段论结论。方法:基于大五问卷的项目,构建60个三段论。三段论随后被分类为可取的(例如,“我同情他人”)和不可取的(例如,“我是被动的”)基于他们的结论。在每个任务中,第二个前提和结论都是用第一人称来表述的,以增加被调查者对内容的认同。共有300名大学生参与研究(Mage = 20.08, SD = 2.02)。结果:采用2(三段论效度:有效,无效)× 2(三段论可取性:可取,不可取)重复测量方差分析。分析表明,更倾向于接受有效三段论的可取结论(有效可取而不是有效不可取),并拒绝无效三段论的不可取结论(无效不可取而不是无效可取)。结论:这些发现对认知任务中的社会期望反应具有启示意义,这可能进一步发展为自我相关内容的来源,并以期望偏见的形式进一步扩展信念偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信