我们的网站为什么显示成这样？

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式，您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本，以获取对此功能的支持，访问下面的网站，获取关于浏览器的信息：

|本期目录/Table of Contents|

 中外两种推理理论的实验比较研究(PDF)

《心理学探新》[ISSN:1003-5184/CN:36-1228/B]

期数:
 2019年06期
页码:
 501-507
栏目:
 推理心理学
出版日期:
 2019-12-30

文章信息/Info

Title:
 The Experimental Comparing Research between Two Reasoning Theories
文章编号:
1003-5184(2019)06-0501-07
作者:
 胡笑羽 胡竹菁
 (江西师范大学心理学院,江西省心理与认知重点实验室,南昌 330022)
Author(s):
 Hu Xiaoyu Hu Zhujing
 (School of Psychology,Lab of Psychology and Cognition Science, Jiangxi Normal University,Nanchang 330022)
关键词:
 双重加工理论;  信念效应;  推理题与推理者的推理知识双重结构模型;  形式判定标准;  内容判定标准
Keywords:
 dual process theory;  belief effect;  dual structure model of item and reasoner's reasoning knowledge;  form determining criterion;  content deter mining criterion
分类号:
 B842.5
DOI:
 -
文献标识码:
 A
摘要:
 通过两个实验对中国学者提出的“推理题与推理者的推理知识双重结构模型”和Evans提出的“双重加工理论”进行了实验比较研究。实验一通过两种评定方法对相应性质命题进行评定后所得实验结果表明Evans等(1983)有关“信念效应”研究中的“结论可信性”变量可以视为与胡竹菁等(1996)实验中的“内容正确性”变量是同一性质的变量; 实验二根据“形式正确性”和“内容正确性”两个自变量设计的推理实验结果与Evans等(1983)的研究结果基本一致; 但增加“内容熟悉性”这一自变量设计的推理实验结果表明“推理题与推理者的推理知识双重结构模型”比Evans提出的“双重加工理论”能更好地解释推理者对性质三段论的推理结果。
Abstract:
 Two Experiments have been designed to compare the two reasoning theories:“Dual structure model of item and reasoner's reasoning knowledge” which proposed by two Chinese Scholars,and “Dual process theory” which proposed by Evans.The first experiment through two different methods to evaluate a set of categorical propositions,the results show that the variable of “believability of conclusion” in the research of Evans et al.(1983)is equal to the variable of “content rightness” in the research of Hu Zhujing et al.(1996).The second experiment is about syllogisms research.When the results which be analysed with the two variables of “logic form rightness” and “content rightness”,it is showing no difference with the research of Evans et al.(1983).But when add a variable of “content familiarity” to the experiment design,the reasoning results could be explained more over by “Dual structure model of item and reasoner's reasoning knowledge” than by Evans's “Dual process theory”.

参考文献/References

 
胡竹菁.(2000).演绎推理的心理学研究.北京:人民教育出版社.
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.
胡竹菁,胡笑羽.(2012).Evans的“双重加工模型”发展过程简要评述.心理学探新,32(4),310-316.
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.
胡竹菁,胡笑羽.(2018).中外两种主要推理模型的实验再比较研究.心理学探新,38(1),31-35.
胡竹菁,张厚粲.(1996).论三段论推理结论正确性的两种判定标准.心理学报,19(1),58-63.
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.
胡竹菁,朱丽萍.(2007).人类推理的心理学研究.北京:高等教育出版社.
Evans,J.St.B.T.,& Stanovich,K.E.(2013).Dual process theories of higher cognition:Advancing the debate.Perspectives on Psychological Science,8,223-241.
Evans,J.St.B.T.,Barston,J.L.,& Pollard,P.(1983).On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning.Mem.Cogn,11,295-306.
Evans,J.St.B.T.(1998).Matching bias in conditional reasoning:Do we understand it after 25 years?Think.Reason,4,45-82.
Evans,J.St.B.T.(1999).The influence of linguistic form on reasoning:The case of matching bias.Q.J.Exp.Psychol,52,185-216.
Neys,W.D.(2018,Ed.).Dual process theory 2.0.Routledge.In K.E.Stanovich(Ed.),(1999).Who is rational?Studies of individual differences in reasoning.Mahway.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
 基金项目:江西省社会科学2013年规划课题(13jy22)。 通讯作者:胡竹菁,E-mail:huzjing@jxnu.edu.cn。
更新日期/Last Update:  2019-12-30