概率和有意行为

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101551
Spencer R. Ericson , Stephanie Denison , John Turri , Ori Friedman
{"title":"概率和有意行为","authors":"Spencer R. Ericson ,&nbsp;Stephanie Denison ,&nbsp;John Turri ,&nbsp;Ori Friedman","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>How does probability affect attributions of intentionality? In five experiments (total N = 1410), we provide evidence for a probability raising account holding that people are more likely to see the outcome of an agent’s action as intentional if the agent does something to increase the odds of that outcome. Experiment 1 found that high probability without probability raising does not suffice for strong attributions of intentionality. Participants were more likely to conclude a girl intentionally obtained a desired gumball from a single gumball machine when it offered favorable odds for getting that kind of gumball compared with when it offered poor odds, but their attributions of intentionality were lukewarm. Experiments 2 and 3 then found stronger attributions of intentionality when the girl raised her probability of success by choosing to use machines offering favorable odds over machines offering poor odds. Finally, Experiments 4 and 5 examined whether these effects of probability raising might reduce to consideration of agents’ beliefs and expectations. We found that although these mental states do matter, probability raising matters too—people attribute intentional actions to agents who increase their odds of success, rather than to agents who merely become convinced that success is likely. We discuss the implications of these findings for claims that control and skill contribute to attributions of intentional action.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"141 ","pages":"Article 101551"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Probability and intentional action\",\"authors\":\"Spencer R. Ericson ,&nbsp;Stephanie Denison ,&nbsp;John Turri ,&nbsp;Ori Friedman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101551\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>How does probability affect attributions of intentionality? In five experiments (total N = 1410), we provide evidence for a probability raising account holding that people are more likely to see the outcome of an agent’s action as intentional if the agent does something to increase the odds of that outcome. Experiment 1 found that high probability without probability raising does not suffice for strong attributions of intentionality. Participants were more likely to conclude a girl intentionally obtained a desired gumball from a single gumball machine when it offered favorable odds for getting that kind of gumball compared with when it offered poor odds, but their attributions of intentionality were lukewarm. Experiments 2 and 3 then found stronger attributions of intentionality when the girl raised her probability of success by choosing to use machines offering favorable odds over machines offering poor odds. Finally, Experiments 4 and 5 examined whether these effects of probability raising might reduce to consideration of agents’ beliefs and expectations. We found that although these mental states do matter, probability raising matters too—people attribute intentional actions to agents who increase their odds of success, rather than to agents who merely become convinced that success is likely. We discuss the implications of these findings for claims that control and skill contribute to attributions of intentional action.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"141 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101551\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028523000099\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028523000099","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

概率如何影响意向性的归因?在五个实验中(总共N=1410),我们为一种提高概率的说法提供了证据,即如果代理人做了一些事情来增加结果的几率,人们更有可能认为代理人的行为是故意的。实验1发现,没有概率提升的高概率不足以实现意向性的强归因。参与者更有可能得出结论,女孩是故意从一台口香糖机上获得想要的口香糖的,当它提供了获得这种口香糖的有利几率时,而当它提供的几率很低时,但他们对意向的归因并不热烈。实验2和3发现,当女孩选择使用赔率高的机器而不是赔率低的机器来提高成功概率时,意向性的归因更强。最后,实验4和5检验了概率提升的这些影响是否会减少到考虑主体的信念和期望。我们发现,尽管这些心理状态确实很重要,但提高概率也很重要——人们将有意的行为归因于增加成功几率的代理人,而不是仅仅相信有可能成功的代理人。我们讨论了这些发现对控制和技能有助于故意行为归因的说法的影响。
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
Probability and intentional action

How does probability affect attributions of intentionality? In five experiments (total N = 1410), we provide evidence for a probability raising account holding that people are more likely to see the outcome of an agent’s action as intentional if the agent does something to increase the odds of that outcome. Experiment 1 found that high probability without probability raising does not suffice for strong attributions of intentionality. Participants were more likely to conclude a girl intentionally obtained a desired gumball from a single gumball machine when it offered favorable odds for getting that kind of gumball compared with when it offered poor odds, but their attributions of intentionality were lukewarm. Experiments 2 and 3 then found stronger attributions of intentionality when the girl raised her probability of success by choosing to use machines offering favorable odds over machines offering poor odds. Finally, Experiments 4 and 5 examined whether these effects of probability raising might reduce to consideration of agents’ beliefs and expectations. We found that although these mental states do matter, probability raising matters too—people attribute intentional actions to agents who increase their odds of success, rather than to agents who merely become convinced that success is likely. We discuss the implications of these findings for claims that control and skill contribute to attributions of intentional action.

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
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Cognitive Psychology is concerned with advances in the study of attention, memory, language processing, perception, problem solving, and thinking. Cognitive Psychology specializes in extensive articles that have a major impact on cognitive theory and provide new theoretical advances. Research Areas include: • Artificial intelligence • Developmental psychology • Linguistics • Neurophysiology • Social psychology.
期刊最新文献
Free time, sharper mind: A computational dive into working memory improvement Editorial Board Building compressed causal models of the world Doing things efficiently: Testing an account of why simple explanations are satisfying Perceptual inference corrects function word errors in reading: Errors that are not noticed do not disrupt eye movements
×
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