偏见盲点的假设驱动因素——认知复杂性、内省偏见和对话过程

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1017/s1930297500009475
D. Mandel, Robert N. Collins, A. C. Walker, Jonathan A. Fugelsang, Evan F. Risko
{"title":"偏见盲点的假设驱动因素——认知复杂性、内省偏见和对话过程","authors":"D. Mandel, Robert N. Collins, A. C. Walker, Jonathan A. Fugelsang, Evan F. Risko","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500009475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Individuals often assess themselves as being less susceptible to common\n biases compared to others. This bias blind spot\n (BBS) is thought to represent a metacognitive error. In this research, we\n tested three explanations for the effect: The cognitive sophistication\n hypothesis posits that individuals who display the BBS more strongly are\n actually less biased than others. The introspection bias hypothesis posits\n that the BBS occurs because people rely on introspection more when assessing\n themselves compared to others. The conversational processes hypothesis\n posits that the effect is largely a consequence of the pragmatic aspects of\n the experimental situation rather than true metacognitive error. In two\n experiments (N = 1057) examining 18\n social/motivational and cognitive biases, there was strong evidence of the\n BBS. Among the three hypotheses examined, the conversational processes\n hypothesis attracted the greatest support, thus raising questions about the\n extent to which the BBS is a metacognitive effect.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hypothesized drivers of the bias blind spot—cognitive sophistication,\\n introspection bias, and conversational processes\",\"authors\":\"D. Mandel, Robert N. Collins, A. C. Walker, Jonathan A. Fugelsang, Evan F. Risko\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1930297500009475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Individuals often assess themselves as being less susceptible to common\\n biases compared to others. This bias blind spot\\n (BBS) is thought to represent a metacognitive error. In this research, we\\n tested three explanations for the effect: The cognitive sophistication\\n hypothesis posits that individuals who display the BBS more strongly are\\n actually less biased than others. The introspection bias hypothesis posits\\n that the BBS occurs because people rely on introspection more when assessing\\n themselves compared to others. The conversational processes hypothesis\\n posits that the effect is largely a consequence of the pragmatic aspects of\\n the experimental situation rather than true metacognitive error. In two\\n experiments (N = 1057) examining 18\\n social/motivational and cognitive biases, there was strong evidence of the\\n BBS. Among the three hypotheses examined, the conversational processes\\n hypothesis attracted the greatest support, thus raising questions about the\\n extent to which the BBS is a metacognitive effect.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Judgment and Decision Making\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Judgment and Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009475\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009475","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

与其他人相比,个人通常认为自己不太容易受到常见偏见的影响。这种偏见盲点(BBS)被认为是一种元认知错误。在这项研究中,我们测试了对这种影响的三种解释:认知成熟度假说认为,在BBS上表现得更强烈的人实际上比其他人更有偏见。内省偏见假说认为,BBS的发生是因为与他人相比,人们在评估自己时更依赖内省。会话过程假说认为,这种影响在很大程度上是实验情境中语用方面的结果,而不是真正的元认知错误。在两个实验(N=1057)中,研究了18种社会/动机和认知偏见,有强有力的证据表明BBS。在所考察的三个假设中,会话过程假设获得了最大的支持,从而引发了人们对BBS在多大程度上是元认知效应的质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Hypothesized drivers of the bias blind spot—cognitive sophistication, introspection bias, and conversational processes
Individuals often assess themselves as being less susceptible to common biases compared to others. This bias blind spot (BBS) is thought to represent a metacognitive error. In this research, we tested three explanations for the effect: The cognitive sophistication hypothesis posits that individuals who display the BBS more strongly are actually less biased than others. The introspection bias hypothesis posits that the BBS occurs because people rely on introspection more when assessing themselves compared to others. The conversational processes hypothesis posits that the effect is largely a consequence of the pragmatic aspects of the experimental situation rather than true metacognitive error. In two experiments (N = 1057) examining 18 social/motivational and cognitive biases, there was strong evidence of the BBS. Among the three hypotheses examined, the conversational processes hypothesis attracted the greatest support, thus raising questions about the extent to which the BBS is a metacognitive effect.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine The final step effect Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment
×
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