Substitution Sensitivity and the Bat-and-Ball Problem: A Direct Replication of De Neys et al. (2013)

Alexandra Machalani, Amanda Gallant, Victoria Orha, N. Ostbo, Eric Hehman
{"title":"Substitution Sensitivity and the Bat-and-Ball Problem: A Direct Replication of De Neys et al. (2013)","authors":"Alexandra Machalani, Amanda Gallant, Victoria Orha, N. Ostbo, Eric Hehman","doi":"10.26443/msurj.v15i1.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Earlier findings (1) came to this conclusion by assessing people’s sensitivity to attribute substitution, which they defined as the situation that occurs when we are confronted with a problem that demands greater cognitive effort, for which we rely on automatic and intuitive processes that substitute the complex situation for an easier one. Methods: Through the exploration of the “bat-and-ball” problem, (2) De Neys, Rossi, and Houdé  (1) found that participants were indeed sensitive to the substitution bias. Specifically, participants who incorrectly answered the question that gave rise to the substitution bias were significantly less confident in their answer relative to their answer on a control problem that did not give rise to the substitution. Using the same methods, we conducted a direct replication study on a sample of 264 undergraduate psychology students. Results and Conclusion: Our results suggest that we successfully replicated the original conclusions; participants who answered by substituting the difficult question for an easier one significantly (p<.0001) decreased their confidence ratings on the version of the problem that gave rise to the substitution bias, relative to the problem that did not. Limitations: Though there may have been limitations, it seems that we are sensitive to attribute substitution.","PeriodicalId":91927,"journal":{"name":"McGill Science undergraduate research journal : MSURJ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGill Science undergraduate research journal : MSURJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/msurj.v15i1.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Earlier findings (1) came to this conclusion by assessing people’s sensitivity to attribute substitution, which they defined as the situation that occurs when we are confronted with a problem that demands greater cognitive effort, for which we rely on automatic and intuitive processes that substitute the complex situation for an easier one. Methods: Through the exploration of the “bat-and-ball” problem, (2) De Neys, Rossi, and Houdé  (1) found that participants were indeed sensitive to the substitution bias. Specifically, participants who incorrectly answered the question that gave rise to the substitution bias were significantly less confident in their answer relative to their answer on a control problem that did not give rise to the substitution. Using the same methods, we conducted a direct replication study on a sample of 264 undergraduate psychology students. Results and Conclusion: Our results suggest that we successfully replicated the original conclusions; participants who answered by substituting the difficult question for an easier one significantly (p<.0001) decreased their confidence ratings on the version of the problem that gave rise to the substitution bias, relative to the problem that did not. Limitations: Though there may have been limitations, it seems that we are sensitive to attribute substitution.
替代敏感性与击球问题:De Neys et al.(2013)的直接复制
背景:有认知的吝啬鬼不是快乐的傻瓜。早期的研究结果(1)是通过评估人们对属性替代的敏感性得出这一结论的,他们将属性替代定义为当我们面临需要更大认知努力的问题时发生的情况,为此,我们依赖于自动和直观的过程,用更简单的情况代替复杂的情况。方法:通过对“球棒和球”问题的探索,(2)De Neys、Rossi和Houdé(1)发现参与者确实对替代偏差很敏感。具体而言,与未导致替代的控制问题的答案相比,错误回答导致替代偏差的问题的参与者对自己的答案的信心明显不足。采用同样的方法,我们对264名心理学本科生进行了直接复制研究。结果和结论:我们的结果表明,我们成功地复制了原来的结论;通过将困难的问题替换为更容易的问题来回答的参与者显著降低了他们对导致替代偏差的问题版本的置信度(p<.0001),而不是对没有产生替代偏差的情况。局限性:尽管可能存在局限性,但我们似乎对属性替换很敏感。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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