还原诱惑的可能原因：对威尔逊等人的答复

IF 2.8 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Cognition Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106003

Deena Skolnick Weisberg

{"title":"还原诱惑的可能原因：对威尔逊等人的答复","authors":"Deena Skolnick Weisberg","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Wilson et al. (2025) report a failed attempt to replicate the reductive allure effect: Unlike prior work, they do not find that participants judged explanations of scientific phenomena to be higher quality when they contained irrelevant reductive language. The current commentary considers three possible reasons for this failure to replicate: (1) a change in the nature of online study participants, (2) a change in the background knowledge that people bring to judgments of scientific explanations, and (3) a change in the kinds of explanations that people find satisfying.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"254 ","pages":"Article 106003"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Possible reasons for reductive seductions: A reply to Wilson et al.\",\"authors\":\"Deena Skolnick Weisberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Wilson et al. (2025) report a failed attempt to replicate the reductive allure effect: Unlike prior work, they do not find that participants judged explanations of scientific phenomena to be higher quality when they contained irrelevant reductive language. The current commentary considers three possible reasons for this failure to replicate: (1) a change in the nature of online study participants, (2) a change in the background knowledge that people bring to judgments of scientific explanations, and (3) a change in the kinds of explanations that people find satisfying.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"254 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106003\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002890\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002890","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

威尔逊等人（2025 年）报告了一次复制还原诱惑效应的失败尝试：与之前的研究不同，他们没有发现当科学现象的解释包含不相关的还原性语言时，参与者会判断这些解释的质量更高。本评论认为，这种复制失败可能有三个原因：(1) 在线研究参与者的性质发生了变化；(2) 人们对科学解释的判断所带来的背景知识发生了变化；(3) 人们认为令人满意的解释类型发生了变化。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Possible reasons for reductive seductions: A reply to Wilson et al.

Wilson et al. (2025) report a failed attempt to replicate the reductive allure effect: Unlike prior work, they do not find that participants judged explanations of scientific phenomena to be higher quality when they contained irrelevant reductive language. The current commentary considers three possible reasons for this failure to replicate: (1) a change in the nature of online study participants, (2) a change in the background knowledge that people bring to judgments of scientific explanations, and (3) a change in the kinds of explanations that people find satisfying.

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

Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

5.90%

发文量

283

期刊介绍： Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.