主观理解因机制框架而减弱。

Q1 Psychology
Journal of Cognition Pub Date : 2024-07-24 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5334/joc.393
Jeffrey C Zemla, Daniel Corral
{"title":"主观理解因机制框架而减弱。","authors":"Jeffrey C Zemla, Daniel Corral","doi":"10.5334/joc.393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People often believe that they have a good understanding of how devices work (e.g., how a ballpoint pen works), despite having poor knowledge of their internal mechanics. We hypothesized that this bias occurs in part because people conflate mechanistic understanding with functional understanding of how devices work (e.g., how to operate a ballpoint pen). In two experiments, we found that increasing the salience of mechanistic information led to lower judgments of understanding for how devices work. In Experiment 1, we did this by showing participants either the internal parts of a device or an external, whole-object view of that same device. Those who saw the internal parts rated their understanding as less than those who saw a whole-object view. In Experiment 2, we removed the pictures and instead tested participants (without feedback) on their mechanistic or functional knowledge using true-or-false questions. Those who were tested on mechanistic knowledge rated their understanding of devices as less than those who were tested on functional knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":32728,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognition","volume":"7 1","pages":"63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11276545/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subjective Understanding is Reduced by Mechanistic Framing.\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey C Zemla, Daniel Corral\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/joc.393\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>People often believe that they have a good understanding of how devices work (e.g., how a ballpoint pen works), despite having poor knowledge of their internal mechanics. We hypothesized that this bias occurs in part because people conflate mechanistic understanding with functional understanding of how devices work (e.g., how to operate a ballpoint pen). In two experiments, we found that increasing the salience of mechanistic information led to lower judgments of understanding for how devices work. In Experiment 1, we did this by showing participants either the internal parts of a device or an external, whole-object view of that same device. Those who saw the internal parts rated their understanding as less than those who saw a whole-object view. In Experiment 2, we removed the pictures and instead tested participants (without feedback) on their mechanistic or functional knowledge using true-or-false questions. Those who were tested on mechanistic knowledge rated their understanding of devices as less than those who were tested on functional knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11276545/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.393\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管人们对设备的内部构造知之甚少,但他们往往认为自己对设备的工作原理(如圆珠笔的工作原理)了如指掌。我们假设,之所以会出现这种偏差,部分原因是人们将机械理解与对设备工作原理(例如,如何操作圆珠笔)的功能理解混为一谈。在两个实验中,我们发现提高机械信息的显著性会降低对设备工作原理的理解判断。在实验 1 中,我们向参与者展示了设备的内部零件或同一设备的外部整体视图。看到内部零件的参与者对其理解程度的评价低于看到整体物体视图的参与者。在实验 2 中,我们去掉了图片,改用真或假问题对参与者的机械或功能知识进行测试(无反馈)。接受机械知识测试的人对装置理解的评价低于接受功能知识测试的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Subjective Understanding is Reduced by Mechanistic Framing.

People often believe that they have a good understanding of how devices work (e.g., how a ballpoint pen works), despite having poor knowledge of their internal mechanics. We hypothesized that this bias occurs in part because people conflate mechanistic understanding with functional understanding of how devices work (e.g., how to operate a ballpoint pen). In two experiments, we found that increasing the salience of mechanistic information led to lower judgments of understanding for how devices work. In Experiment 1, we did this by showing participants either the internal parts of a device or an external, whole-object view of that same device. Those who saw the internal parts rated their understanding as less than those who saw a whole-object view. In Experiment 2, we removed the pictures and instead tested participants (without feedback) on their mechanistic or functional knowledge using true-or-false questions. Those who were tested on mechanistic knowledge rated their understanding of devices as less than those who were tested on functional knowledge.

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
Journal of Cognition
Journal of Cognition Psychology-Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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