The desirability bias in personality-related syllogistic reasoning.

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Scandinavian journal of psychology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1111/sjop.12984
Nina Hadžiahmetović, Goran Opačić, Predrag Teovanović, Jadranka Kolenović-Đapo
{"title":"The desirability bias in personality-related syllogistic reasoning.","authors":"Nina Hadžiahmetović, Goran Opačić, Predrag Teovanović, Jadranka Kolenović-Đapo","doi":"10.1111/sjop.12984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The belief-bias effect is a tendency to evaluate syllogistic statements based on believability rather than on formal logic validity. Following this rationale, the study examines desirability bias as the tendency to evaluate syllogistic conclusions based on their desirability when reasoning is conducted on personality-relevant categorical syllogisms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For this purpose, 60 syllogisms were constructed based on the items of the Big Five questionnaire. Syllogisms were subsequently categorized as desirable (e.g., \"I empathize with others\") and undesirable (e.g., \"I am passive\") based on their conclusion. In each task, the second premise and the conclusion were formulated in the first person to increase a respondent's identification with the content. A total of 300 university students (M<sub>age</sub> = 20.08, SD = 2.02) participated in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A 2 (syllogism validity: valid, invalid) × 2 (syllogism desirability: desirable, undesirable) repeated measures ANOVA was employed. The analysis showed a greater tendency to accept desirable conclusions on valid syllogisms (valid desirable rather than valid undesirable) and reject undesirable conclusions on invalid syllogisms (invalid undesirable rather than invalid desirable).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings have implications for socially desirable responding in cognitive tasks, which may be further developed as a source of self-relevant content as well as for further extension of belief bias in the form of desirability bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":21435,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12984","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The belief-bias effect is a tendency to evaluate syllogistic statements based on believability rather than on formal logic validity. Following this rationale, the study examines desirability bias as the tendency to evaluate syllogistic conclusions based on their desirability when reasoning is conducted on personality-relevant categorical syllogisms.

Methods: For this purpose, 60 syllogisms were constructed based on the items of the Big Five questionnaire. Syllogisms were subsequently categorized as desirable (e.g., "I empathize with others") and undesirable (e.g., "I am passive") based on their conclusion. In each task, the second premise and the conclusion were formulated in the first person to increase a respondent's identification with the content. A total of 300 university students (Mage = 20.08, SD = 2.02) participated in the study.

Results: A 2 (syllogism validity: valid, invalid) × 2 (syllogism desirability: desirable, undesirable) repeated measures ANOVA was employed. The analysis showed a greater tendency to accept desirable conclusions on valid syllogisms (valid desirable rather than valid undesirable) and reject undesirable conclusions on invalid syllogisms (invalid undesirable rather than invalid desirable).

Conclusion: These findings have implications for socially desirable responding in cognitive tasks, which may be further developed as a source of self-relevant content as well as for further extension of belief bias in the form of desirability bias.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人格相关三段论推理中的可取性偏差。
引言:信念偏差效应是一种倾向于基于可信度而不是形式逻辑有效性来评估三段论陈述。根据这一基本原理,本研究考察了可取性偏见,即当对与人格相关的直言三段论进行推理时,人们倾向于根据三段论结论的可取性来评估三段论结论。方法:基于大五问卷的项目,构建60个三段论。三段论随后被分类为可取的(例如,“我同情他人”)和不可取的(例如,“我是被动的”)基于他们的结论。在每个任务中,第二个前提和结论都是用第一人称来表述的,以增加被调查者对内容的认同。共有300名大学生参与研究(Mage = 20.08, SD = 2.02)。结果:采用2(三段论效度:有效,无效)× 2(三段论可取性:可取,不可取)重复测量方差分析。分析表明,更倾向于接受有效三段论的可取结论(有效可取而不是有效不可取),并拒绝无效三段论的不可取结论(无效不可取而不是无效可取)。结论:这些发现对认知任务中的社会期望反应具有启示意义,这可能进一步发展为自我相关内容的来源,并以期望偏见的形式进一步扩展信念偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian journal of psychology
Scandinavian journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
102
期刊介绍: Published in association with the Nordic psychological associations, the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology publishes original papers from Scandinavia and elsewhere. Covering the whole range of psychology, with a particular focus on experimental psychology, the journal includes high-quality theoretical and methodological papers, empirical reports, reviews and ongoing commentaries.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology is organised into four standing subsections: - Cognition and Neurosciences - Development and Aging - Personality and Social Sciences - Health and Disability
期刊最新文献
Co-worker phubbing: A qualitative exploration of smartphone use during work breaks. Core self‐evaluations and perceived classmate support: Independent predictors of psychological adjustment Interpretability and clinical utility of the strength and stressors in parenting questionnaire Sex workers' professional agency, quality of life, and problematic substance use in Finland Not exactly twins: Authoritarians and populists differ in their attitudes toward trust in government, elitism, pluralism, political identification, and identity fusion
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1