从自我报告的冲突测量中发现冲突的证据

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Debiao Zhu, Zhujing Hu, Dandan Nie, Jianyong Yang
{"title":"从自我报告的冲突测量中发现冲突的证据","authors":"Debiao Zhu, Zhujing Hu, Dandan Nie, Jianyong Yang","doi":"10.1080/20445911.2023.2241697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Human thinking is typically biased. A central question in dual process theories is whether people detect conflicts between heuristic and logical information. In the present study, we explored this issue. Participants were presented with conflict and non-conflict base-rate neglect problems and syllogism problems, followed by self-reported conflict measures determining the extent to which they considered alternative solutions after resolving each problem. Although the participants generally could not correctly answer the conflict problems, the results showed that their self-reported conflict measures in the incorrect conflict items were lower than those in the correct non-conflict items, indicating that the participants could recognise the conflict between heuristic and logical information. The implications of the ongoing debate on conflict detection are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":47483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","volume":"35 1","pages":"755 - 762"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence for conflict detection from the self-reported conflict measure\",\"authors\":\"Debiao Zhu, Zhujing Hu, Dandan Nie, Jianyong Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20445911.2023.2241697\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Human thinking is typically biased. A central question in dual process theories is whether people detect conflicts between heuristic and logical information. In the present study, we explored this issue. Participants were presented with conflict and non-conflict base-rate neglect problems and syllogism problems, followed by self-reported conflict measures determining the extent to which they considered alternative solutions after resolving each problem. Although the participants generally could not correctly answer the conflict problems, the results showed that their self-reported conflict measures in the incorrect conflict items were lower than those in the correct non-conflict items, indicating that the participants could recognise the conflict between heuristic and logical information. The implications of the ongoing debate on conflict detection are also discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"755 - 762\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2241697\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2241697","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要人类思维通常带有偏见。双过程理论中的一个核心问题是人们是否发现启发式信息和逻辑信息之间的冲突。在本研究中,我们探讨了这个问题。参与者被介绍了冲突和非冲突基本率忽视问题以及三段论问题,然后是自我报告的冲突测量,确定他们在解决每个问题后考虑替代解决方案的程度。尽管参与者通常不能正确回答冲突问题,但结果表明,他们在不正确的冲突项目中的自我报告冲突测量低于在正确的非冲突项目中,表明参与者能够识别启发式信息和逻辑信息之间的冲突。还讨论了正在进行的关于冲突检测的辩论的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence for conflict detection from the self-reported conflict measure
ABSTRACT Human thinking is typically biased. A central question in dual process theories is whether people detect conflicts between heuristic and logical information. In the present study, we explored this issue. Participants were presented with conflict and non-conflict base-rate neglect problems and syllogism problems, followed by self-reported conflict measures determining the extent to which they considered alternative solutions after resolving each problem. Although the participants generally could not correctly answer the conflict problems, the results showed that their self-reported conflict measures in the incorrect conflict items were lower than those in the correct non-conflict items, indicating that the participants could recognise the conflict between heuristic and logical information. The implications of the ongoing debate on conflict detection are also discussed.
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 Cognitive Psychology
Journal of Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
54
×
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