The latent scope bias: Robust and replicable

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105872
Sangeet Khemlani , Samuel G.B. Johnson , Daniel M. Oppenheimer , Abigail B. Sussman
{"title":"The latent scope bias: Robust and replicable","authors":"Sangeet Khemlani ,&nbsp;Samuel G.B. Johnson ,&nbsp;Daniel M. Oppenheimer ,&nbsp;Abigail B. Sussman","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People appear to prefer explanations that minimize unobserved effects, a pattern known as the <em>latent scope bias</em> in explanatory reasoning. A recent set of studies published in <em>Cognition</em> argues that the bias can be elicited only in certain narrow conditions and with certain tasks, such as a forced-choice task (Stephan, 2023). This commentary assesses the robustness of the bias in two ways: it weighs the most recent discoveries against previous research, and it presents two new studies using the most general possible elicitation task, i.e., spontaneous written responses to problems designed to test for a latent scope bias. Across 35 previous studies, 7 studies published in Stephan (2023), and 2 new studies described herein, the overwhelming majority of studies showed that people preferred narrow latent scope explanations over broad ones. This analysis led us to conclude that the bias is both robust and replicable. Taken together, Stephan's (2023) contribution and our new analyses advance our understanding of explanatory reasoning behavior.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"252 ","pages":"Article 105872"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724001586","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People appear to prefer explanations that minimize unobserved effects, a pattern known as the latent scope bias in explanatory reasoning. A recent set of studies published in Cognition argues that the bias can be elicited only in certain narrow conditions and with certain tasks, such as a forced-choice task (Stephan, 2023). This commentary assesses the robustness of the bias in two ways: it weighs the most recent discoveries against previous research, and it presents two new studies using the most general possible elicitation task, i.e., spontaneous written responses to problems designed to test for a latent scope bias. Across 35 previous studies, 7 studies published in Stephan (2023), and 2 new studies described herein, the overwhelming majority of studies showed that people preferred narrow latent scope explanations over broad ones. This analysis led us to conclude that the bias is both robust and replicable. Taken together, Stephan's (2023) contribution and our new analyses advance our understanding of explanatory reasoning behavior.

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
潜在范围偏差:稳健且可复制
人们似乎更倾向于选择能最大限度减少未观察到的影响的解释,这种模式被称为解释性推理中的潜在范围偏差。最近发表在《认知》(Cognition)杂志上的一组研究认为,只有在特定的狭小条件下和特定的任务(如强迫选择任务)中才能引发这种偏差(Stephan,2023 年)。本评论从两个方面评估了偏差的稳健性:一是将最新发现与之前的研究进行比较,二是介绍了两项新研究,这两项研究使用了最普遍的诱发任务,即自发书面回答问题,旨在测试潜在的范围偏差。在之前的 35 项研究、发表于《Stephan》(2023 年)的 7 项研究以及本文介绍的 2 项新研究中,绝大多数研究表明,人们更喜欢狭义的潜范围解释,而不是广义的解释。这项分析使我们得出结论,这种偏差既稳健又可复制。综合来看,斯蒂芬(2023)的贡献和我们的新分析推进了我们对解释推理行为的理解。
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
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers? Relative source credibility affects the continued influence effect: Evidence of rationality in the CIE. Decoding face identity: A reverse-correlation approach using deep learning How does color distribution learning affect goal-directed visuomotor behavior? Bias-free measure of distractor avoidance in visual search
×
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