Linda问题的表象-命题双表征解释视角探究

Seeing the Linda problem from a “mental image representation”: “Proposition representation” dual representation perspective

本文首先提出了Linda问题的表象-命题双表征这一新的解释视角。该视角认为,Linda问题基于表象表征和命题表征可以有两种不同的解读与表征方式;而不同的被试在Linda问题上可能分别采取了上述表征方式之一;但由于Linda问题的特殊性,大多数被试采用了表象表征;大多数被试的这一表征取向则可能是所谓谬误判断出现的原因。本文通过4项研究,让被试在基于表象表征设计的转述版本与基于命题表征设计的转述版间选择接近自身理解的版本;并考察了将Linda问题修改成更符合命题表征的数学化表达形式能否降低所谓谬误水平;还考察了增加促使被试运用命题表征的排序项"Linda是全人类中的一员"能否降低所谓谬误水平。结果显示,在转述版本选择上,大多数被试选择了基于表象表征设计的版本;而上文所指的两个修正版Linda问题则都降低了被试的所谓谬误水平。这些结果支持了本文所提的视角。

A dual representation that is the mental image representation and the proposition representation of the Linda problem was proposed in this paper. We hold that people have two different but reasonable representations for the Linda problem. When people used the mental image representation, they think their task in the Linda problem was to judge to what extent of the typical images of the accountant, the feminist or the ＂accountantfeminist＂ match the image of Linda respectively according to the conversational rule. However, when people used the propositional representation, the Linda problem is just a math problem described by Tversky Kahneman（1983）. Although both of these two presentations were reasonable, the description of Linda in the Linda problem make people more often use the mental image representation. This is also the reason why most people more likely judge the Lady as accountant-feminist. To test the above assumption, four studies which contained 607 participants were conducted. In study 1, two translated versions, that are the translated versions of the mental image representation, and the translated version of frequency format representation of the Linda problem were used to investigate which version is more closed to participants＇ representations. In study 2, another two translated versions, that is the translated version of mental image representation and the translated version of the ratio format representation was used to investigate which one is more closed to participants＇ representations. In study 3, two new versions of the Linda problem and the original Linda problem was used to investigate the difference between of them. In one new version, the mathematics set was used to replace the professions in the original Linda problem, but the other expressions were still in nature language. In another new version, the professions were also replaced by mathematics set, and the other expressions were in math language simultaneously. In study 4, another newversion of Linda problem and the original version of the Linda problem were sent to participants randomly. The only difference between the new version of Linda problem and the original one is that the new version had a new ranking item which is ＂Linda is a person in human being＂. The results of the study 1 and 2 showed that most participants who committed the fallacy chose the mental image representation of the Linda problem as the one which matched their own representations; but the participants who didn＇t commit the fallacy did not have this response bias;（2） The results of study 3 showed that the proportion of the fallacy on both of the new versions of the Linda problem were lower than the original version. However, there was no significant difference between the proportions of the fallacy on both of the new versions.（3） The results of study 4 showed that the proportion level of the fallacy on the new version of the Linda problem was lower than the original one. All the results supported the dual representations perspective of the Linda problem. This research suggested that more studies were needed to explore the mechanism of the Linda problem.