首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychology >Is experiential-intuitive cognitive style more inclined to err on conjunction fallacy than analytical-rational cognitive style?
【24h】

Is experiential-intuitive cognitive style more inclined to err on conjunction fallacy than analytical-rational cognitive style?

机译:体验直觉的认知风格比分析理性的认知风格更倾向于犯错吗?

获取原文
       

摘要

In terms of prediction by Epstein’s integrative theory of personality, cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST), those people with experiential-intuitive cognitive style are more inclined to induce errors than the other people with analytical-rational cognitive style in the conjunction fallacy (two events that can occur together are seen as more likely than at least one of the two events). We tested this prediction in a revised Linda problem. The results revealed that rational and experiential cognitive styles do not statistically influence the propensity for committing the conjunction fallacy, which is contrary to the CEST’s predictions. Based on the assumption that the rational vs. experiential processing is a personality trait with comparatively stabile specialities, these findings preliminarily indicate that those people who are characterized by “rational thinking” are not more inclined to use Bayes’ deduction than the other people who are labeled by “intuitive thinking” or by “poor thinking.”.
机译:根据爱泼斯坦的人格综合理论,认知体验自我理论(CEST)进行的预测,与其他具有分析理性认知风格的人相比,具有体验-直觉认知风格的人更倾向于诱发错误(与两个事件中的至少一个相比,可以一起发生的两个事件的可能性更大。我们在修订的Linda问题中测试了此预测。结果表明,理性的和经验的认知方式在统计学上不会影响犯下连词谬误的倾向,这与CEST的预测相反。基于理性与经验加工是具有相对稳定特质的人格特质的假设,这些发现初步表明,具有“理性思维”特征的人与其他具有理性思维的人相比,不更倾向于使用贝叶斯演绎法。以“直觉思维”或“不良思维”来标记。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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