期刊文献+

概率判断中的合取谬误 被引量:4

Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment
下载PDF
导出
摘要 概率判断中的合取谬误是指违反事件发生概率的合取规则而认为包含多个独立事件的复合事件的发生可能性大于其中某些事件的发生可能性的一种概率判断偏差现象。合取谬误的界定存在一定争议,相关的解释机制有因果模型理论、确认理论、惊奇理论等,影响合取谬误的因素有频率效应、训练效应以及个体差异等等。未来研究应联系逆转合取谬误的心理机制来完善已有的理论,同时注意应用研究以及其非理性的探讨。 The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment refers to a phenomenon of probability judgment bias, which results from violating the conjunction rules of event occurrence probability and regarding that the occurrence probability of conjunction event that contains multiple independent events is greater than that of conjunct events in it. The definition standard of conjunction fallacy is incongruent. The relevant mental mechanism includes causal model theory, confirmation theory and surprise theory and so on, and many factors affect conjunction fallacy, like frequency effect, training effect, individual differences, and many others. Studies in the future should combine the mental mechanism of inverse conjunction fallacy to perfect the existing explanatory theory, meanwhile, the conjunction fallacy in application and its irrationality should be noticed.
出处 《心理科学进展》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2015年第6期967-978,共12页 Advances in Psychological Science
关键词 合取谬误 心理机制 影响因素 逆转合取谬误 非理性 conjunction fallacy psychological mechanism effect factors inverse conjunction fallacy irrationality
  • 相关文献

参考文献48

  • 1刘立秋,陆勇.Linda问题:“齐当别”抉择模型的解释[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(5):735-742. 被引量:7
  • 2徐英瑾.从演化论角度为“合取谬误”祛谬[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2014,56(2):110-118. 被引量:1
  • 3Agnoli, F., & Krantz, D. H. (1989). Suppressing natural heuristics by formal instruction: the case of the conjunction fallacy. Cognitive Psychology, 21(4),515-550.
  • 4Aristidou, M. (2013). Irrationality re-Examined: A few comments on the conjunction fallacy. Open Journal of Philosophy. 3(2), 329-336.
  • 5Bonini, N., Tentori, K., & Osherson, D. (2004). A different conjunction fallacy. Mind & Language. 19(2), 199-210.
  • 6Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • 7Cassotti, M., & Moutier, S. (2010). How to explain receptivity to conjunction-fallacy inhibition training: Evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition. 72(3), 378-384.
  • 8Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2010). On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda. Games and Economic Behavior. 68(2), 551-556.
  • 9Connolly, A. C., Fodor, J. A., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (2007). Why stereotypes don't even make good defaults. Cognition. 103(1), 1-22.
  • 10Crupi, V., Fitelson, B., & Tentori, K. (2008). Probability, confirmation, and the conjunction fallacy. Thinking & Reasoning. 14(2),182-199.

二级参考文献20

  • 1李纾.艾勒悖论(Allais Paradox)另释[J].心理学报,2001,33(2):176-181. 被引量:17
  • 2李纾.确定、不确定及风险状态下选择反转:“齐当别”选择方式的解释(英文)[J].心理学报,2005,37(4):427-433. 被引量:24
  • 3李纾.发展中的行为决策研究[J].心理科学进展,2006,14(4):490-496. 被引量:39
  • 4《演化、设计、心灵和道德-新达尔主义哲学基础探微》(上海:复旦大学出版社,2013年).
  • 5Stephen M. 1)owncs, "EvolutionaryPsychology," Sta,ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato, stanford, edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/.
  • 6John Dewey, "The Interpretation of the Savage Mind," Psychological Review 9(19-)2) : 217-23().
  • 7P.uth Garrett Millikan, "Biosemantics," ed. David Chalmers, Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readi,gs ( Ne\v York : Oxf-)rd University Press, 2000) 506..
  • 8B. Inhelder &J. Piaget, The Early Growth of Logic in the Child (New York: Norton, 1969).
  • 9Alvin Goldman : "Reliabilism, " Stanford Encyclopedia qf Philosophy, http ://plato.stanford, edu/entries/reliabilism/.
  • 10John Pollack & Joseph Cruz : Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, second edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999 ) - 4.4 o.

共引文献6

同被引文献21

  • 1刘立秋,陆勇.Linda问题:“齐当别”抉择模型的解释[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(5):735-742. 被引量:7
  • 2艾森克,基恩.认知心理学.上海:华东师范大学出版社,2004.3.
  • 3Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory ~nd Cognigon, 10(1), 82-93.
  • 4Cassotti, M., & Moutier, S. (2010). How to explain receptivity to conjunction- fallacy inhibition training: Evidence from the Iowa sambling task. Brain arid Cognlgon, 72(3), 378-384.
  • 5Costello, F., & Watts, P. (2014). Surprisingly rational: Probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.Psychological Review, 121(3), 463--480.
  • 6Davies, J. B., Anderson, A., & Little, D. (2011). Social cognition and the so-called conjunction fallacy. Current Psycfiology, 30(3), 245-257.
  • 7Fiedler, K. (1985). The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors.Psychological Research, 50(2), 123-129.
  • 8Hertwig, R, Benz, B., & Krauss, S. (2008). The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and. Cognition, 108(3), 740-753.
  • 9Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The "conjunction fallacy" revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 275-305.
  • 10Jarvstad, A., & Hahn, U. (2011). Source reliability and the conjunction fallacy Cognigve Science, 35(4), 682-711.

引证文献4

二级引证文献9

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部