期刊文献+

合取谬误的情绪唤醒机制:文理科生间的差异比较 被引量:3

The Mechanism of Emotional Arousal in Conjunction Fallacy:The Comparison between the Arts and Science Students
下载PDF
导出
摘要 本研究探讨了文、理科生在合取谬误的情绪唤醒机制上的差异。文、理实验组接受逻辑思维+情绪唤醒训练,文、理控制组接受逻辑思维训练。结果发现,情绪唤醒训练能减少文、理科实验组在后测中的合取谬误。与理科实验组相比,文科实验组在后测更少出现合取谬误。另外,在文科实验组中,有情绪唤醒训练效果的被试的爱荷华成绩比无情绪唤醒训练效果的被试高,而在理科实验组中无此发现。本研究揭示了合取谬误的情绪唤醒机制受个体情绪唤醒敏感性的影响且情绪唤醒训练作用具有多重性。 In the present study, we aimed to study the difference between the art and science students in emotional arousal in conjunction fallacy. After completing a computerized version of the IGT, participants of both the art and the science students accepted either emotional-based inhibition training or only logical training to avoid conjunction bias on a frequency judgment task. Pre- and post-test performances were assessed via another probability judgment task. The results showed that only the emotional-based training can enable the participants to avoid cognitive bias. What's more, compared to the sciences students, the art students had a better inhibition training effect. This study suggested that individuals with different thinking style were different in emotional-based learning ability which had affected the emotional arousal in Conjunction Fallacy and the effect of emotional-based inhibition training was multiple.
出处 《心理研究》 2015年第4期30-35,共6页 Psychological Research
基金 国家自然科学基金(No.31200762)资助 教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目(11YJC740071)资助 国家基础科学人才培养基金(J1030729和J1210024)资助
关键词 合取谬误 情绪唤醒机制 爱荷华任务 文理科生 conjunction-fallacy emotional arousal training Iowa Gambling Task arts and science students
  • 相关文献

参考文献18

  • 1Evans J S B T. Logical and human reasoning: An as- sessment of the deductive paradigm. Psychological Bul- letin, 2002, 128(6): 978-996.
  • 2Evans J S B T. In two minds: Dual-process account of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7 (10) : 454-459.
  • 3De Neys W. Automatic- heuristic and executive- ana- lytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. The Quarterly Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology, 2006, 59(6): 1070-1100.
  • 4Kahneman D, & Frederick S. Representativeness re- visited : Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 2002: 49-81.
  • 5孙彦,李纾,殷晓莉.决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(5):721-726. 被引量:148
  • 6Kahneman D A. Perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 2003, 58: 697-720.
  • 7Houde O, & Tzourio-Mazoyer N. Neural foundations of logical and mathematical cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2003, 4(6): 507-514.
  • 8Houde O. First insights on neuropedagogy of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2007, 13(2): 81-89.
  • 9Houd6 O, Zago L, Crivello F, Moutier S, Pineau A, Mazoyer B, & Tzourio-Mazoyer N. Access to deduc- tive logic depends on a right ventromedial prefrontal area devoted to emotion and feeling: Evidence from a training paradigm. Neuroimage, 2001, 14 (6): 1486- 1492.
  • 10Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, & Anderson S W. Dissociation of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex. The journal of neuroscience, 1998, 18(1): 428-437.

二级参考文献110

共引文献174

同被引文献16

引证文献3

二级引证文献10

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