Is Automation of Statistical Reasoning a Suitable Mindware in a Base-Rate Neglect Task?

IF 0.4 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psihologijske teme Pub Date : 2021-12-13 DOI:10.31820/pt.30.3.3
Klara Rapan, P. Valerjev
{"title":"Is Automation of Statistical Reasoning a Suitable Mindware in a Base-Rate Neglect Task?","authors":"Klara Rapan, P. Valerjev","doi":"10.31820/pt.30.3.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Until recently, studies within the dual-process approach were mainly focused on group differences in processing, and individual differences were neglected. However, individual differences have proven to be a significant factor in conflict detection efficiency and the overall success in base-rate neglect and similar tasks. This should be taken into consideration within the framework of the Hybrid Model of Dual Processing. New tendencies in the development of this model have focused attention on the degree of mindware instantiation as a predictor of base-rate neglect task efficiency. This study aimed to examine the relationship between mindware and base-rate neglect task efficiency and to test and explore the relationship between base-rate response frequency and conflict detection efficiency and the degree of mindware instantiation. All participants solved base-rate neglect tasks, made judgments of confidence in their responses, and solved the Statistical Reasoning Test, Cognitive Reflection Test and Numeracy Scale. We used the Statistical Reasoning Test as a measure of mindware instantiation. The degree of mindware instantiation was found to be the only significant predictor of base-rate neglect task efficiency and the results showed that participants with a higher degree of mindware instantiation generally made more base-rate responses. No correlation was found between the degree of mindware instantiation and conflict detection efficiency. These findings support the hypothesis that the power of logical intuition depends on the individual’s degree of mindware instantiation. Therefore, the results of this research indicate the importance of further research into the role of statistical reasoning in base-rate neglect task efficiency. However, we discuss that there are some methodological limitations in this research which might explain why the degree of mindware instantiation had no relationship with conflict efficiency.","PeriodicalId":20858,"journal":{"name":"Psihologijske teme","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psihologijske teme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.30.3.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Until recently, studies within the dual-process approach were mainly focused on group differences in processing, and individual differences were neglected. However, individual differences have proven to be a significant factor in conflict detection efficiency and the overall success in base-rate neglect and similar tasks. This should be taken into consideration within the framework of the Hybrid Model of Dual Processing. New tendencies in the development of this model have focused attention on the degree of mindware instantiation as a predictor of base-rate neglect task efficiency. This study aimed to examine the relationship between mindware and base-rate neglect task efficiency and to test and explore the relationship between base-rate response frequency and conflict detection efficiency and the degree of mindware instantiation. All participants solved base-rate neglect tasks, made judgments of confidence in their responses, and solved the Statistical Reasoning Test, Cognitive Reflection Test and Numeracy Scale. We used the Statistical Reasoning Test as a measure of mindware instantiation. The degree of mindware instantiation was found to be the only significant predictor of base-rate neglect task efficiency and the results showed that participants with a higher degree of mindware instantiation generally made more base-rate responses. No correlation was found between the degree of mindware instantiation and conflict detection efficiency. These findings support the hypothesis that the power of logical intuition depends on the individual’s degree of mindware instantiation. Therefore, the results of this research indicate the importance of further research into the role of statistical reasoning in base-rate neglect task efficiency. However, we discuss that there are some methodological limitations in this research which might explain why the degree of mindware instantiation had no relationship with conflict efficiency.
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
统计推理自动化在基本概率忽略任务中是一个合适的思维方式吗?
到目前为止,双加工方法的研究主要集中在加工的群体差异上,而忽视了个体差异。然而,个体差异已被证明是冲突检测效率和基本率忽略和类似任务的总体成功的一个重要因素。这应该在双重处理混合模型的框架内加以考虑。该模型发展的新趋势集中在意识实例化程度作为基本率忽略任务效率的预测指标。本研究旨在检验心理意识与基本率忽略任务效率之间的关系,检验和探讨基本率反应频率、冲突检测效率和心理意识实例化程度之间的关系。所有参与者都完成了基本忽略率任务,对他们的回答做出了信心判断,并完成了统计推理测试、认知反射测试和算术量表。我们使用统计推理测试作为思维实例化的测量。研究发现,思维实例化程度是基本率忽略任务效率的唯一显著预测因子,结果表明,思维实例化程度越高的被试通常会做出更多的基本率反应。意识实例化程度与冲突检测效率之间没有相关性。这些发现支持了逻辑直觉的力量取决于个体思维实例化程度的假设。因此,本研究结果表明了进一步研究统计推理在基本率忽略任务效率中的作用的重要性。然而,我们讨论了本研究中存在一些方法上的局限性,这可能解释了为什么思维实例化程度与冲突效率没有关系。
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
Psihologijske teme
Psihologijske teme Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
„Ne mogu te razumjeti jer ne mogu razumjeti sebe” Tears and Mood: Intra-Individual Effects of Emotional Crying Kreativnost i izvedba Simonova zadatka Doprinos percepcije roditeljskih sukoba i konstruktivne komunikacije s partnerom kvaliteti veze Validation of the Factor Structure of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire on the Croatian Students Sample
×
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