代表性在推理和元认知过程中的作用:对琳达问题的深入分析

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
M. Dujmović, P. Valerjev, Igor Bajšanski
{"title":"代表性在推理和元认知过程中的作用:对琳达问题的深入分析","authors":"M. Dujmović, P. Valerjev, Igor Bajšanski","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2020.1746692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We conducted a thorough investigation of the impact of representativeness on reasoning and metacognitive processes by employing the Linda problem. In congruent versions, the more representative response choice was also the correct one which was not the case in conflict versions. We manipulated the level of representativeness of the responses by making the component statements more or less representative of presented descriptions. The main findings revealed that higher levels of representativeness led to lower accuracy, faster responses and higher confidence. Detailed analysis revealed that certain reasoning processes heavily depend on representativeness and metacognitive assessments based on it (e.g., decoupling from a representative but incorrect response need not lead to lower confidence though it may be computationally expensive). Finally, responses remained mostly stable after rethinking, while answer changes towards the more representative choice were more likely than the opposite which implies Type 2 processes may support both normative and heuristic thinking.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"39 1","pages":"161 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of representativeness in reasoning and metacognitive processes: an in-depth analysis of the Linda problem\",\"authors\":\"M. Dujmović, P. Valerjev, Igor Bajšanski\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2020.1746692\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract We conducted a thorough investigation of the impact of representativeness on reasoning and metacognitive processes by employing the Linda problem. In congruent versions, the more representative response choice was also the correct one which was not the case in conflict versions. We manipulated the level of representativeness of the responses by making the component statements more or less representative of presented descriptions. The main findings revealed that higher levels of representativeness led to lower accuracy, faster responses and higher confidence. Detailed analysis revealed that certain reasoning processes heavily depend on representativeness and metacognitive assessments based on it (e.g., decoupling from a representative but incorrect response need not lead to lower confidence though it may be computationally expensive). Finally, responses remained mostly stable after rethinking, while answer changes towards the more representative choice were more likely than the opposite which implies Type 2 processes may support both normative and heuristic thinking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"161 - 186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1746692\",\"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/10.1080/13546783.2020.1746692","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: 8

摘要

摘要本文采用Linda问题深入研究了代表性对推理和元认知过程的影响。在一致性版本中,更具代表性的回答选择也是正确的,而在冲突版本中则不是这样。我们通过使组件陈述或多或少地代表所呈现的描述来操纵响应的代表性水平。主要研究结果表明,代表性水平越高,准确性越低,反应速度越快,可信度越高。详细分析表明,某些推理过程严重依赖于代表性和基于代表性的元认知评估(例如,从代表性但不正确的反应中解耦并不会导致较低的置信度,尽管它可能在计算上昂贵)。最后,反思后的回答基本保持稳定,而更有可能向更具代表性的选择改变答案,这意味着类型2过程可能同时支持规范性和启发式思维。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of representativeness in reasoning and metacognitive processes: an in-depth analysis of the Linda problem
Abstract We conducted a thorough investigation of the impact of representativeness on reasoning and metacognitive processes by employing the Linda problem. In congruent versions, the more representative response choice was also the correct one which was not the case in conflict versions. We manipulated the level of representativeness of the responses by making the component statements more or less representative of presented descriptions. The main findings revealed that higher levels of representativeness led to lower accuracy, faster responses and higher confidence. Detailed analysis revealed that certain reasoning processes heavily depend on representativeness and metacognitive assessments based on it (e.g., decoupling from a representative but incorrect response need not lead to lower confidence though it may be computationally expensive). Finally, responses remained mostly stable after rethinking, while answer changes towards the more representative choice were more likely than the opposite which implies Type 2 processes may support both normative and heuristic thinking.
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