表达:重温代表性启发式经典范式:对 Kahneman 和 Tversky(1972 年)中九个实验的复制和扩展。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Lewend Mayiwar, Kai Hin Wan, Erik Løhre, Gilad Feldman
{"title":"表达:重温代表性启发式经典范式:对 Kahneman 和 Tversky(1972 年)中九个实验的复制和扩展。","authors":"Lewend Mayiwar, Kai Hin Wan, Erik Løhre, Gilad Feldman","doi":"10.1177/17470218241255916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Kahneman and Tversky showed that when people make probability judgements, they tend to ignore relevant statistical information (e.g., sample size) and instead rely on a representativeness heuristic, whereby subjective probabilities are influenced by the degree to which a target is perceived as similar to (representative of) a typical example of the relevant population, class or category. Their article has become a cornerstone in many lines of research and has been used to account for various biases in judgement and decision-making. Despite the impact this article has had on theory and practice, there have been no direct replications. In a pre-registered experiment (<i>N</i> = 623; Amazon MTurk on CloudResearch), we conducted a replication and extensions of nine problems from Kahneman and Tversky's 1972 article. We successfully replicated eight out of the nine problems. We extended the replication by examining the consistency of heuristic responses across problems and by examining decision style as a predictor of participants' use of the representativeness heuristic. Materials, data, and code are available on: https://osf.io/nhqc4/.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting representativeness heuristic classic paradigms: Replication and extensions of nine experiments in Kahneman and Tversky (1972).\",\"authors\":\"Lewend Mayiwar, Kai Hin Wan, Erik Løhre, Gilad Feldman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218241255916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Kahneman and Tversky showed that when people make probability judgements, they tend to ignore relevant statistical information (e.g., sample size) and instead rely on a representativeness heuristic, whereby subjective probabilities are influenced by the degree to which a target is perceived as similar to (representative of) a typical example of the relevant population, class or category. Their article has become a cornerstone in many lines of research and has been used to account for various biases in judgement and decision-making. Despite the impact this article has had on theory and practice, there have been no direct replications. In a pre-registered experiment (<i>N</i> = 623; Amazon MTurk on CloudResearch), we conducted a replication and extensions of nine problems from Kahneman and Tversky's 1972 article. We successfully replicated eight out of the nine problems. We extended the replication by examining the consistency of heuristic responses across problems and by examining decision style as a predictor of participants' use of the representativeness heuristic. Materials, data, and code are available on: https://osf.io/nhqc4/.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241255916\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241255916","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Kahneman 和 Tversky(1972 年)的研究表明,人们在进行概率判断时,往往会忽略相关的统计信息(如样本大小),转而依赖于代表性启发式,即主观概率会受到目标与相关人群、类别或类别中的典型例子的相似程度(代表性)的影响。他们的论文已成为许多研究领域的基石,并被用来解释判断和决策中的各种偏差。尽管这篇文章对理论和实践都产生了影响,但却没有直接的复制。在一项预先注册的实验(N = 623;CloudResearch 上的亚马逊 MTurk)中,我们对 Kahneman 和 Tversky(1972 年)的九个问题进行了复制和扩展。我们成功复制了九个问题中的八个。我们通过研究不同问题中启发式反应的一致性,以及研究决策风格对参与者使用代表性启发式的预测作用,对复制进行了扩展。材料、数据和代码可在以下网址获取:https://osf.io/nhqc4/。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting representativeness heuristic classic paradigms: Replication and extensions of nine experiments in Kahneman and Tversky (1972).

Kahneman and Tversky showed that when people make probability judgements, they tend to ignore relevant statistical information (e.g., sample size) and instead rely on a representativeness heuristic, whereby subjective probabilities are influenced by the degree to which a target is perceived as similar to (representative of) a typical example of the relevant population, class or category. Their article has become a cornerstone in many lines of research and has been used to account for various biases in judgement and decision-making. Despite the impact this article has had on theory and practice, there have been no direct replications. In a pre-registered experiment (N = 623; Amazon MTurk on CloudResearch), we conducted a replication and extensions of nine problems from Kahneman and Tversky's 1972 article. We successfully replicated eight out of the nine problems. We extended the replication by examining the consistency of heuristic responses across problems and by examining decision style as a predictor of participants' use of the representativeness heuristic. Materials, data, and code are available on: https://osf.io/nhqc4/.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
×
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