«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:

 2020年06期

页码:

 518-523

栏目:

 

出版日期:

 2020-12-25

文章信息/Info

Title:

 Conditional Reasoning:The Comparison between the Two Experimental Research Approaches of “Deduction” and “Probability”

文章编号:

1003-5184(2020)06-0518-06

作者:

 胡笑羽¹; 2; 胡竹菁¹; 2

 (1.江西师范大学心理学院,江西省心理与认知科学重点实验室,南昌 330022; 2.江西师范大学心理研究所,南昌 330022)

Author(s):

 Hu Xiaoyu¹; 2; Hu Zhujing¹; 2

 (1.Lab of Psychology and Cognition Science of Jiangxi,School of Psychology,Jiangxi Normal University,Nanchang 330022; 2.Psychology Institute,Jiangxi Normal University,Nanchang 330022)

关键词:

 条件推理;  条件推理的演绎推理实验范式;  条件推理的概率推理实验范式

Keywords:

 conditional reasoning;  the deductive experimental approach to research conditional reasoning;  the probability experimental approach to research conditional reasoning

分类号:

 B842.5

DOI:

 -

文献标识码:

 A

摘要:

 本研究通过推理心理学研究中的“演绎”和“概率”两种实验范式设计对同一个班级的大学生参与者(实验一中N=57,实验二中N=43)进行先后两次有关条件推理的实验研究后,得出如下主要结果:(1)推理者在对不同的“纯形式条件命题本身的认可度”以及对由它们各自建构的同类型推理题的推理结果之间的作答反应模式之间的差异都很小且具有较高的一致性;(2)对由不同的“含具体内容的假言命题”本身的认可度之间以及由它们建构的同类型条件推理题的推理结果之间具有较大的差异性;(3)推理者对“演绎”和“概率”两种不同实验范式分别建构的内容近似的推进题进行推理时具有大致相同的作答反应趋势。由此可以推论推理者在“概率推理实验范式”中的作答或推理结果可以被视为只是对“演绎推理实验范式”的相应推理题给出“概率解”的心理加工过程。

Abstract:

 The study used two different experimental approaches,“the deductive experimental approach” and “the probability experimental approach”,to research conditional reasoning pattern of human beings.Two experiments was designed in the study:“the probability experimental approach” was used in the first experiment and “the deductive experimental approach” was used in the second experiment used.Each experiment included same three parts:the reasoning test,rule judgment and sentence judgment.The subjects in the two experiments are the students in a same class,57 of them took part in the first experiment,3 weeks late,43 of them took part in the second experiment.The materials were been used in the second part of the two experiments include the same six “conditional(or hypothetical)propositions”,two of them belong to “the pure form”,and other four belong to “the real content” and were used in the experiment designed by Oaksford et al in 2000.Overall,themain findings indicated that:(1)The reasoners gave the same responds models for the two experiments when they solved the problems constructed by the two “the pure form propositions”:they gave high consistence acceptance between the two “the pure form propositions” and high consistence reasoning results between the same kinds of the four conditional reasoning forms which constructed by the two “the pure form propositions”;(2)The reasoners also gave the trends of same responds models for the two experiments when they solved the problems constructed by the four “real content propositions”,although there are high different acceptance between the four “real content propositions” in each experiment and high different reasoning results between the same kinds of the four “real content propositions” in each experiment.So we couldarrived at the conclusion that the reasoning results in “the probability experimental approach” are just give the “the probability result” by the reasoner for the same reasoning items presented in “the deductive experimental approach”.

参考文献/References

 《普通逻辑》编写组.(2011).普通逻辑.上海:上海人民出版社.
胡竹菁,胡笑羽.(2016).条件推理的条件概率模型的新进展.心理学探新,36(3),211-216.
胡竹菁,周纯,余达祥.(2009).论条件推理中的两种“高概率结论效应”.心理科学,32(2),266-269.
邱江,张庆林.(2005).有关条件推理中概率效应的实验研究.心理科学,28(3),554-557.
Eysenck,M.W.,& Keane,M.T.(2015).Cognitive psychology:A student’s handbook.Hove:Psychology Press.
Manktelow,K.(2012).Thinking and reasoning.Hove:Psychology Press.
Oaksford,M.,& Chater,N.(1994).A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection.Psychological Review,101(4),608-631.
Oaksford,M.,& Chater,N.(2007).Bayesian rationality:The probabilistic approach to human reasoning.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Oaksford,M.,& Chater,N.(Eds.).(2010).Cognition and conditionals:Probabilisty and logic in human thinking.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Oaksford,M.,Chater,N.,& Larkin,J.(2000).Probability and polarity biases in conditional inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology:LMC,4,883-899.
Schroyens,W.,Schaeken,W.,& d’Ydewalle,G.(2001).The processing of negations in conditional reasoning:A meta-analytic case study in mental logic and/or mental model theory.Thinking & Reasoning,7,121-172.
Wason,P.C.(1964).The effect of self-contradiction on fallacious reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,16,30-34.
Wason,P.C.(1968).Reasoning about a rule.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,20,273-281.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

 -

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update:  2020-12-25