伪权变:根据基准利率进行灵活的权变推断

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1017/s1930297500009165
Tobias Vogel, Moritz Ingendahl, Linda McCaughey
{"title":"伪权变:根据基准利率进行灵活的权变推断","authors":"Tobias Vogel, Moritz Ingendahl, Linda McCaughey","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500009165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Humans are evidently able to learn contingencies from the co-occurrence\n of cues and outcomes. But how do humans judge contingencies when\n observations of cue and outcome are learned on different occasions? The\n pseudocontingency framework proposes that humans rely on base-rate\n correlations across contexts, that is, whether outcome base rates increase\n or decrease with cue base rates. Here, we elaborate on an alternative\n mechanism for pseudocontingencies that exploits base rate information within\n contexts. In two experiments, cue and outcome base rates varied across four\n contexts, but the correlation by base rates was kept constant at zero. In\n some contexts, cue and outcome base rates were aligned (e.g., cue and\n outcome base rates were both high). In other contexts, cue and outcome base\n rates were misaligned (e.g., cue base rate was high, but outcome base rate\n was low). Judged contingencies were more positive for contexts in which cue\n and outcome base rates were aligned than in contexts in which cue and\n outcome base rates were misaligned. Our findings indicate that people use\n the alignment of base rates to infer contingencies conditional on the\n context. As such, they lend support to the pseudocontingency framework,\n which predicts that decision makers rely on base rates to approximate\n contingencies. However, they challenge previous conceptions of\n pseudocontingencies as a uniform inference from correlated base rates.\n Instead, they suggest that people possess a repertoire of multiple\n contingency inferences that differ with regard to informational requirements\n and areas of applicability.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pseudocontingencies: Flexible contingency inferences from base\\n rates\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Vogel, Moritz Ingendahl, Linda McCaughey\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1930297500009165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Humans are evidently able to learn contingencies from the co-occurrence\\n of cues and outcomes. But how do humans judge contingencies when\\n observations of cue and outcome are learned on different occasions? The\\n pseudocontingency framework proposes that humans rely on base-rate\\n correlations across contexts, that is, whether outcome base rates increase\\n or decrease with cue base rates. Here, we elaborate on an alternative\\n mechanism for pseudocontingencies that exploits base rate information within\\n contexts. In two experiments, cue and outcome base rates varied across four\\n contexts, but the correlation by base rates was kept constant at zero. In\\n some contexts, cue and outcome base rates were aligned (e.g., cue and\\n outcome base rates were both high). In other contexts, cue and outcome base\\n rates were misaligned (e.g., cue base rate was high, but outcome base rate\\n was low). Judged contingencies were more positive for contexts in which cue\\n and outcome base rates were aligned than in contexts in which cue and\\n outcome base rates were misaligned. Our findings indicate that people use\\n the alignment of base rates to infer contingencies conditional on the\\n context. As such, they lend support to the pseudocontingency framework,\\n which predicts that decision makers rely on base rates to approximate\\n contingencies. However, they challenge previous conceptions of\\n pseudocontingencies as a uniform inference from correlated base rates.\\n Instead, they suggest that people possess a repertoire of multiple\\n contingency inferences that differ with regard to informational requirements\\n and areas of applicability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Judgment and Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"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/s1930297500009165\",\"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/s1930297500009165","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

人类显然能够从线索和结果的共同出现中学习突发事件。但是,当在不同的场合学习线索和结果的观察结果时,人类如何判断偶然性?伪连续性框架提出,人类依赖于跨上下文的基本速率相关性,即结果基本速率是随着线索基本速率的增加还是减少。在这里,我们详细介绍了一种伪连续性的替代机制,该机制利用上下文中的基本速率信息。在两个实验中,线索和结果的基本比率在四种情况下不同,但基本比率的相关性保持不变。在某些情况下,线索和结果的基本比率是一致的(例如,线索和成果的基本比率都很高)。在其他情况下,线索和结果基础率不一致(例如,线索基础率高,但结果基础率低)。在线索和结果基础比率一致的情况下,判断的意外事件比线索和结果基本比率不一致的情况更积极。我们的研究结果表明,人们使用基本利率的一致性来推断有条件的突发事件。因此,他们支持伪突发事件框架,该框架预测决策者依赖基本利率来估计突发事件。然而,它们挑战了以前关于伪连续性的概念,即从相关的基本速率进行统一推断。相反,他们认为人们拥有多种偶然性推断,这些推断在信息需求和适用领域方面有所不同。
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
Pseudocontingencies: Flexible contingency inferences from base rates
Humans are evidently able to learn contingencies from the co-occurrence of cues and outcomes. But how do humans judge contingencies when observations of cue and outcome are learned on different occasions? The pseudocontingency framework proposes that humans rely on base-rate correlations across contexts, that is, whether outcome base rates increase or decrease with cue base rates. Here, we elaborate on an alternative mechanism for pseudocontingencies that exploits base rate information within contexts. In two experiments, cue and outcome base rates varied across four contexts, but the correlation by base rates was kept constant at zero. In some contexts, cue and outcome base rates were aligned (e.g., cue and outcome base rates were both high). In other contexts, cue and outcome base rates were misaligned (e.g., cue base rate was high, but outcome base rate was low). Judged contingencies were more positive for contexts in which cue and outcome base rates were aligned than in contexts in which cue and outcome base rates were misaligned. Our findings indicate that people use the alignment of base rates to infer contingencies conditional on the context. As such, they lend support to the pseudocontingency framework, which predicts that decision makers rely on base rates to approximate contingencies. However, they challenge previous conceptions of pseudocontingencies as a uniform inference from correlated base rates. Instead, they suggest that people possess a repertoire of multiple contingency inferences that differ with regard to informational requirements and areas of applicability.
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