«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《心理学探新》[ISSN:1003-5184/CN:36-1228/B]

期数:

 2018年01期

页码:

 31-35

栏目:

 认知心理学

出版日期:

 2018-01-15

文章信息/Info

Title:

 The Experimental Comparative Research between “Mental Model” and “The Dual Structure Model of Item-structure and Knowledge-structure”

文章编号:

1003-5184(2018)01-0031-05

作者:

 胡竹菁 胡笑羽

 江西师范大学心理学院,南昌 330022

Author(s):

 Hu Zhujing Hu Xiaoyu

 School of Psychology,Jiangxi Normal University,Nanchang 330022

关键词:

 心理模型;  推理题和推理者的推理知识双重结构模型;  推理形式结构;  推理内容结构

Keywords:

 Key words:mental model;  The Dual Structure Model of Item-structure and Knowledge-structure;  logical criteria;  content criteria

分类号:

 B842.5

DOI:

 -

文献标识码:

 A

摘要:

 本研究采用2X2两因素(自变量分别为“心理模型数量”和不同“内容性质”)重复测量拉丁方实验方法,在范畴三段论推理题的内在结构为“形式正确”,且“推理者已经掌握相应的形式逻辑推理规则”的前提条件下,对西方学者提出的“心理模型”与中国学者提出的“推理题和推理者的推理知识双重结构模型”这两种理论模型再次进行了实验比较研究。结果表明,对于“正确形式—正确内容”和“正确形式—错误内容”两种不同结构的推理题,若按照形式逻辑规则来判定推理者“对各推理题的结论能否从两个前提中推论出来的推论结果”是否正确,则有:(1)当推理题含有错误内容的情况下,即使该推理题只是由“一个心理模型”所构成,也会使推理者降低对其结论判定为“正确”的可能性;(2)当推理题是由正确内容所构成时,即使该推理题是由三个心理模型所构成,对其结论判定为“正确”的可能性也要比“单模型——错误内容”构成的推理题的可能性更高。由此得到的比较结论是:在本实验条件下,“推理题和推理者的推理知识双重结构模型”对实验结果所做的解释要比“心理模型”理论所做的解释更为贴切。

Abstract:

 Abstract:This paper Compared two models of human reasoning:“Mental Model” and “The Dual Structure Model of Item-structure and Knowledge-structure”.The research confirms Mental Model under purely form tasks or corrective premise tasks and keeps short for the tasks of “corrective form and false content”.The result of the later supports “The Dual Structure Model of Item-structure and Knowledge-structure”,and shows that the effect of content is stronger than the effect of the numbers of mental models.

参考文献/References

 [1]胡竹菁.(1995).论三段论推理过程结论正确性的判定标准.博士学位论文.北京师范大学.
[2]胡竹菁.(1999).“‘心理模型'和‘知识与试题双重结构模型'的比较研究”.心理科学,22(4),362-364.
[3]胡竹菁.(2000).演绎推理的心理学研究.北京:人民教育出版社.
[4]胡竹菁,胡笑羽.(2015).人类推理的“推理题与推理知识双重结构模型”.心理学探新,35(3),212-216.
[5]胡竹菁,张厚粲.(1996).论三段论推理过程中结论正确性的两种判定标准.心理学报,28(1),58-63.
[6]胡竹菁,朱丽萍.(2003).推理结论正确性判定标准再探.心理与行为研究,1(4),248-251.
[7]Anderson,J.R.(2015).Cognitive Psychology and Its Implication.Worth Publishers.
[8]Eyssenck,M.W.,& Keane,M.T.(2015).Cognitive psychology.Psychology Press.
[9]Johnson-Laird,P.N.(1980).Mental Modelsin Cognitive Science.Cognitive Science,4,71-115.
[10]Johnson-Laird,P.N.(1983).Mental models:Towards a cognitive science of language,inference and consciousness.Cambridge,England:Cambridge University Press; Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.
[11]Johnson-Laird,P.N.,& Byrne,R.M.J.(1991).Deduction.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.
[12]Johnson-Laird,P.N.(2005).Mental Models and Thought.In K.J.Holyoak & R.G.Morrison(Eds.),The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning.Cambridge University Press.
[13]Johnson-Laird,P.N.(2006).How we reason.New York:Oxford University Press.
[14]Johnson-Laird,P.N.(2012).Inference with Mental Models.In K.J.Holyoak & R.G.Morrison(Eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning.Oxford University Press.
[15]Johnson-Laird,P.N.,& Bara,B.(1982).The figural effect in syllogistic rèasoning.Mimeo,Laboratory of Experimental Psychology,Sussex. Johnson-Laird,P.N.,& Bara,B.(1984).Syllogistic inference.Cognition,16,1-6.
[16]Johnson-Laird,P.N.,& Steedman,M.(1978).The psychology of syllogisms.Cognitive Psychology,10,64-98.
[17]Oakhill,J.V.,& Johnson-Laird,R.N.(1985b).The effects of belief on the spontaneous production of syllogistic conclusions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A,553-569.
[18]Oakhill,J.V.,Johnson-Laird,R.N.,& Garnham,A.(1989).Believability and syllogistic reasoning.Cognition,31,117-140.
[19]Störring,G.(1908).Experimentelle Untersuchungen über einfa-che Schlussprozesse,Arch.f,d.ges.Psychol,11,1-127.
[20]Woodworth,R.S.,& Sells,S.B.(1935).An atmosphere effect in formal syllogistic reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18,451-460.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

 基金项目:国家自然科学基金(31460252),江西省社会科学2013年规划课题(13jy22)。

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update:  2018-01-15