首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias
【2h】

When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias

机译:当快速逻辑遇到慢速信念时:信念偏差并行处理模型的证据

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Two experiments pitted the default-interventionist account of belief bias against a parallel-processing model. According to the former, belief bias occurs because a fast, belief-based evaluation of the conclusion pre-empts a working-memory demanding logical analysis. In contrast, according to the latter both belief-based and logic-based responding occur in parallel. Participants were given deductive reasoning problems of variable complexity and instructed to decide whether the conclusion was valid on half the trials or to decide whether the conclusion was believable on the other half. When belief and logic conflict, the default-interventionist view predicts that it should take less time to respond on the basis of belief than logic, and that the believability of a conclusion should interfere with judgments of validity, but not the reverse. The parallel-processing view predicts that beliefs should interfere with logic judgments only if the processing required to evaluate the logical structure exceeds that required to evaluate the knowledge necessary to make a belief-based judgment, and vice versa otherwise. Consistent with this latter view, for the simplest reasoning problems (modus ponens), judgments of belief resulted in lower accuracy than judgments of validity, and believability interfered more with judgments of validity than the converse. For problems of moderate complexity (modus tollens and single-model syllogisms), the interference was symmetrical, in that validity interfered with belief judgments to the same degree that believability interfered with validity judgments. For the most complex (three-term multiple-model syllogisms), conclusion believability interfered more with judgments of validity than vice versa, in spite of the significant interference from conclusion validity on judgments of belief.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
机译:有两个实验使默认干预者对并行处理模型的信念偏差有了解释。根据前者的说法,之所以会出现信念偏差,是因为对结论的快速,基于信念的评估先于需要进行逻辑分析的工作记忆。相反,根据后者,基于信念的响应和基于逻辑的响应都是并行发生的。为参与者提供了可变复杂性的演绎推理问题,并指示他们在一半的试验中确定结论是否有效,或在另一半的结论中确定结论是否可信。当信念和逻辑冲突时,默认干预主义者的观点预测,与逻辑相比,基于信念的响应所花的时间应该更少,结论的可信度应该会干扰有效性的判断,而不会相反。并行处理视图预测,只有在评估逻辑结构所需的处理超过评估作出基于信念的判断所必需的知识所需的处理时,信念才应干扰逻辑判断,否则,反之亦然。与后一种观点一致,对于最简单的推理问题(惯常用法),信念的判断导致的准确性比有效性的判断低,而可信度比有效性的干扰更多地影响了有效性的判断。对于中等复杂性的问题(惯常通行费和单模式三段论),干扰是对称的,因为有效性对信念判断的干扰程度与可信度对有效性判断的干扰程度相同。对于最复杂的(三项多模型三段论),尽管结论效度对信念判断产生重大干扰,但结论可信度对有效性判断的干扰要强于反之亦然。电子补充材料本文的在线版本(doi :10.3758 / s13421-016-0680-1)包含补充材料,授权用户可以使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号