A Constant Error, Revisited: A New Explanation of the Halo Effect

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1111/cogs.70022
Chris Westbury, Daniel King
{"title":"A Constant Error, Revisited: A New Explanation of the Halo Effect","authors":"Chris Westbury,&nbsp;Daniel King","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Judgments of character traits tend to be overcorrelated, a bias known as <i>the halo effect</i>. We conducted two studies to test an explanation of the effect based on shared lexical context and connotation. Study 1 tested whether the context similarity of trait names could explain 39 participants’ ratings of the probability that two traits would co-occur. Over 126 trait pairs, cosine similarity between the word2vec vectors of the two words was a reliable predictor of the human judgments of trait co-occurrence probability (cross-validated <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = .19, <i>p</i> &lt; .001). Two measures related to word similarity increased the variation accounted for in the human judgments to 45%, cross-validated (<i>p</i> &lt; .001). In Experiment 2, 40 different participants judged similarity of word meaning within the pairs, confirming that the word pairs were not simply synonymous (Average [SD] = 40.8/100 [13.1/100]). Shared lexical context and word connotation play a role in shaping the halo effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70022","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70022","RegionNum":2,"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: 0

Abstract

Judgments of character traits tend to be overcorrelated, a bias known as the halo effect. We conducted two studies to test an explanation of the effect based on shared lexical context and connotation. Study 1 tested whether the context similarity of trait names could explain 39 participants’ ratings of the probability that two traits would co-occur. Over 126 trait pairs, cosine similarity between the word2vec vectors of the two words was a reliable predictor of the human judgments of trait co-occurrence probability (cross-validated r2 = .19, p < .001). Two measures related to word similarity increased the variation accounted for in the human judgments to 45%, cross-validated (p < .001). In Experiment 2, 40 different participants judged similarity of word meaning within the pairs, confirming that the word pairs were not simply synonymous (Average [SD] = 40.8/100 [13.1/100]). Shared lexical context and word connotation play a role in shaping the halo effect.

Abstract Image

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
一个持续的错误,重新审视:对光环效应的新解释
人们对性格特征的判断往往是过度相关的,这种偏见被称为光环效应。我们进行了两项研究来检验基于共享词汇语境和内涵的效应解释。研究1测试了性状名称的上下文相似性是否可以解释39名参与者对两个性状同时出现的概率的评分。在126对特征对中,两个词的word2vec向量之间的余弦相似度是人类判断特征共现概率的可靠预测因子(交叉验证r2 = 0.19, p <;措施)。两项与单词相似度相关的测量将人类判断中的差异增加到45%,交叉验证(p <;措施)。在实验2中,40名不同的参与者判断单词对内的词义相似度,证实单词对不是简单的同义(平均[SD] = 40.8/100[13.1/100])。共同的词汇语境和词汇内涵在光环效应的形成中起着重要作用。
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
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
期刊最新文献
Do the Gödel Vignettes Involve a New Descriptivist Meaning? A Critical Discussion of Devitt and Porot's Elicited Production Test on Proper Names. The Confrustion Constellation: A New Way of Looking at Confusion and Frustration. Sad Art Gives Voice to Our Own Sadness. Simple Auto-Associative Networks Succeed at Universal Generalization of the Identity Function and Reduplication Rule. The New-Meaning Objection: A Reply to Nicolò D'Agruma.
×
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