使用口头或数字量词作出的决定之间的差异

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
D. Liu, Marie Juanchich, M. Sirota, S. Orbell
{"title":"使用口头或数字量词作出的决定之间的差异","authors":"D. Liu, Marie Juanchich, M. Sirota, S. Orbell","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2020.1720813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Past research suggests that people process verbal quantifiers differently from numerical ones, but this suggestion has yet to be formally tested. Drawing from traditional correlates of dual-process theories, we investigated whether people process verbal quantifiers faster, less accurately, and with less subjective effort than numerical quantifiers. In two pre-registered experiments, participants decided whether a quantity (either verbal or numerical) of a nutrient, summed with a pictorial quantity, exceeded a recommended total. The verbal quantifiers were matched to average numerical translations (Experiment 1) as well as translations from participants themselves (Experiment 2). Across experiments, participants did not answer faster or find verbal quantifiers less effortful than numerical ones, but they made less accurate decisions on average with verbal quantifiers because they used more context-based decision shortcuts (e.g., ‘minerals are healthy’). Our findings suggest that it is how much people rely on context that distinguishes their decisions with verbal and numerical quantifiers.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"38 1","pages":"69 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences between decisions made using verbal or numerical quantifiers\",\"authors\":\"D. Liu, Marie Juanchich, M. Sirota, S. Orbell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2020.1720813\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Past research suggests that people process verbal quantifiers differently from numerical ones, but this suggestion has yet to be formally tested. Drawing from traditional correlates of dual-process theories, we investigated whether people process verbal quantifiers faster, less accurately, and with less subjective effort than numerical quantifiers. In two pre-registered experiments, participants decided whether a quantity (either verbal or numerical) of a nutrient, summed with a pictorial quantity, exceeded a recommended total. The verbal quantifiers were matched to average numerical translations (Experiment 1) as well as translations from participants themselves (Experiment 2). Across experiments, participants did not answer faster or find verbal quantifiers less effortful than numerical ones, but they made less accurate decisions on average with verbal quantifiers because they used more context-based decision shortcuts (e.g., ‘minerals are healthy’). Our findings suggest that it is how much people rely on context that distinguishes their decisions with verbal and numerical quantifiers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"69 - 96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1720813\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1720813","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

过去的研究表明,人们对言语量词和数字量词的处理方式不同,但这一观点尚未得到正式的验证。根据传统的双过程理论,我们调查了人们处理言语量词是否比处理数字量词更快、更不准确、更少的主观努力。在两个预先注册的实验中,参与者决定一个营养物质的数量(无论是口头的还是数字的)是否超过了推荐的总量。言语量词与平均数字翻译(实验1)以及参与者自己的翻译(实验2)相匹配。在所有实验中,参与者的回答速度并没有更快,也没有发现言语量词比数字翻译更省力,但他们在使用言语量词时平均做出的决策不太准确,因为他们更多地使用基于上下文的决策捷径(例如,“矿物质是健康的”)。我们的研究结果表明,人们对语境的依赖程度决定了他们的决定与口头和数字量词的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences between decisions made using verbal or numerical quantifiers
Abstract Past research suggests that people process verbal quantifiers differently from numerical ones, but this suggestion has yet to be formally tested. Drawing from traditional correlates of dual-process theories, we investigated whether people process verbal quantifiers faster, less accurately, and with less subjective effort than numerical quantifiers. In two pre-registered experiments, participants decided whether a quantity (either verbal or numerical) of a nutrient, summed with a pictorial quantity, exceeded a recommended total. The verbal quantifiers were matched to average numerical translations (Experiment 1) as well as translations from participants themselves (Experiment 2). Across experiments, participants did not answer faster or find verbal quantifiers less effortful than numerical ones, but they made less accurate decisions on average with verbal quantifiers because they used more context-based decision shortcuts (e.g., ‘minerals are healthy’). Our findings suggest that it is how much people rely on context that distinguishes their decisions with verbal and numerical quantifiers.
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
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
×
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