错误,快与慢:对概率判断中反应时间的分析

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Thinking & Reasoning Pub Date : 2020-06-19 DOI:10.1080/13546783.2020.1781691
Jonas Ludwig, Fabian K. Ahrens, A. Achtziger
{"title":"错误,快与慢:对概率判断中反应时间的分析","authors":"Jonas Ludwig, Fabian K. Ahrens, A. Achtziger","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2020.1781691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Based on the Dual-Process Diffusion Model, we tested three hypotheses about response times of errors and correct responses in probability judgments. We predicted that correct responses were (1) slower than errors in the case of conflicting decision processes but (2) faster than errors in the case of alignment; and that they were (3) slower in the case of conflict than in the case of alignment. A binary-choice experiment was conducted in which three types of decision problems elicited conflict or alignment of a deliberative decision process and a heuristic decision process. Consistent with the traditional dual-process architecture, the former captured computational-normative decision strategies and the latter described intuitive-affective aspects of decision making. The hypotheses (1) and (3) were supported, while no statistically significant evidence was found for (2). Implications for the generalisability of the Dual-Process Diffusion Model to slow probability judgments are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Errors, fast and slow: an analysis of response times in probability judgments\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Ludwig, Fabian K. Ahrens, A. Achtziger\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2020.1781691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Based on the Dual-Process Diffusion Model, we tested three hypotheses about response times of errors and correct responses in probability judgments. We predicted that correct responses were (1) slower than errors in the case of conflicting decision processes but (2) faster than errors in the case of alignment; and that they were (3) slower in the case of conflict than in the case of alignment. A binary-choice experiment was conducted in which three types of decision problems elicited conflict or alignment of a deliberative decision process and a heuristic decision process. Consistent with the traditional dual-process architecture, the former captured computational-normative decision strategies and the latter described intuitive-affective aspects of decision making. The hypotheses (1) and (3) were supported, while no statistically significant evidence was found for (2). Implications for the generalisability of the Dual-Process Diffusion Model to slow probability judgments are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1781691\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1781691","RegionNum":3,"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: 4

摘要

摘要基于双过程扩散模型,对概率判断中错误反应时间和正确反应时间的三个假设进行了检验。我们预测正确的反应(1)在冲突决策过程中比错误的反应慢,但(2)在一致的情况下比错误的反应快;他们(3)在冲突的情况下比在结盟的情况下慢。在三种类型的决策问题中,审慎决策过程和启发式决策过程相互冲突或一致,进行了二元选择实验。与传统的双进程架构一致,前者捕获计算规范的决策策略,后者描述决策的直觉-情感方面。假设(1)和(3)得到了支持,而(2)没有发现统计学上显著的证据。本文讨论了双过程扩散模型对慢概率判断的通用性的影响。
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
Errors, fast and slow: an analysis of response times in probability judgments
Abstract Based on the Dual-Process Diffusion Model, we tested three hypotheses about response times of errors and correct responses in probability judgments. We predicted that correct responses were (1) slower than errors in the case of conflicting decision processes but (2) faster than errors in the case of alignment; and that they were (3) slower in the case of conflict than in the case of alignment. A binary-choice experiment was conducted in which three types of decision problems elicited conflict or alignment of a deliberative decision process and a heuristic decision process. Consistent with the traditional dual-process architecture, the former captured computational-normative decision strategies and the latter described intuitive-affective aspects of decision making. The hypotheses (1) and (3) were supported, while no statistically significant evidence was found for (2). Implications for the generalisability of the Dual-Process Diffusion Model to slow probability judgments are discussed.
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
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: a closer look at the evidence When word frequency meets word order: factors determining multiply-constrained creative association Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world
×
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