Momentary and integrative response strategies in causal judgment

Associative models of causal learning predict recency effects. Judgments at the end of a trial series should be strongly biased by recently presented information. Prior research, however, presents a contrasting picture of human performance. López, Shanks, Almaraz, and Fernández (1998) observed recency, whereas Dennis and Ahn (2001) found the opposite, primacy. Here we replicate both of these effects and provide an explanation for this paradox. Four experiments show that the effect of trial order on judgments is a function of judgment frequency, where incremental judgments lead to recency while single final judgments abolish recency and lead instead to integration of information across trials (i.e., primacy). These results challenge almost all existing accounts of causal judgment. We propose a modified associative account in which participants can base their causal judgments either on current associative strength (momentary strategy) or on the cumulative change in associative strength since the previous judgment (integrative strategy).     

Categorization,cognitive consistency and the concept of dimensional salience

Cognitive consistency theories predict changes in evaluation within an existing frame of reference. This frame of reference must be defined in terms of those dimensions or aspects of the situation that appear most salient to the individual concerned. The same siuation may appear balanced or unbalanced, depending on which dimensions are seen as salient. The tendency to maintain balance may therefore reveal itself in a tendency to see as salient those dimensions in terms of which a given situation will appear most balanced. This is consistent with evidence from the judgment of attitude statements, which suggests that individuals will regard as most salient those dimensions along which their own evaluations of a set of statements will be most congruent with the value connotations of the terms by which the judgment scale is labelled.     

增龄性联结记忆损伤及其影响因素

老年人的联结记忆随年龄增长而出现普遍损伤, 这种增龄性联结记忆损伤究竟是因捆绑功能受损导致的特定损伤还是因整体认知机能受损导致的信息表征能力的整体损伤, 还存有争论。以Naveh-Benjamin (2000)的联结损伤假说(ADH)为代表的特定损伤观认为, 增龄性联结记忆损伤与老年人捆绑不同项目和提取这些捆绑的特定加工过程的损伤有关; 而以Benjamin (2010)的DRYAD模型为代表的整体损伤观则认为, 增龄性联结记忆损伤与老年人因老化而导致的记忆保持精度的整体损伤有关。二者在基本观点、实验支持及存在问题上各有侧重。此外, 影响增龄性联结损伤的因素还可大致分为刺激信息特性、被试主体特点两方面。同时强调未来研究不仅要关注老年人联结损伤的认知机制和影响因素, 更应关注其实际应用和临床指导价值。     

The use of stereotypes and individuating information in political person perception

This article introduces the political person perception model, which identifies conditions under which perceivers rely on stereotypes (party membership), individuating information (issue position), or both in political person perception. Three studies supported the model's predictions. Study 1 showed that perceivers gave primacy to target information that was narrowly relevant to a judgment, whether that information was stereotypic or individuating. Study 2 found that perceivers relied exclusively on individuating information when it was narrowly relevant to the judgment and relied on both stereotype and individuating information when individuating information was not narrowly relevant to the judgment but did imply a political ideology. Study 3 replicated these findings in a more ecologically valid context and showed that people relied on party information in the absence of narrowly relevant policy positions and when individuating information did not imply a political ideology. Implications for political person perception and theories of stereotyping are discussed.     

Lay Theories of Personality: Cornerstones of Meaning in Social Cognition

Lay theories (or ‘implicit theories’) are cornerstones for social cognition: people use lay theories to help them make sense of complex and ambiguous behavior. In this study, we describe recent research on the entity and incremental theories (the belief that personality is fixed or malleable). In so doing, we demonstrate that each theory does not act alone. Instead, each is associated with a set of allied beliefs, the sum total of which cohere into two distinct meaning systems. We present evidence that these meaning systems produce systematic differences in a range of fundamental social cognition processes, with important implications for the field’s understanding of trait/situation attribution, moral judgment, person memory, and stereotyping. We further argue that because meaning systems serve a central meaning‐making function, people are motivated to believe that the meaning system they are using is effective and accurate. Accordingly, we present evidence that people exhibit processing distortions and compensatory mechanisms to minimize the impact of information that violates their meaning system. We discuss the implications of these findings for the field’s understanding of basic social cognition.     

Demonstrating the effect of context on order effects for an army air defense task using the patriot simulator

The results reported herein support the hypotheses that (1) situation-specific, contextual features of a task can cause people to use explanation-based reasoning (Pennington and Hastie, 1993); (2) such reasoning can cause experienced personnel, both individually and in two-person teams, to reinterpret the meaning of the same information when it is presented in two different ordered sequences; and (3) the result will be primacy or recency (or no) effects depending on whether the most recent conflicting information can be explained away or not, respectively. These results extend the belief-adjustment model proposed by Hogarth and Einhorn (1992), which does not address information reinterpretations, and always predicts recency effects for an evaluation task with a short series of conflicting information. More generally, the results demonstrate the importance of situation-specific, contextual features in understanding judgment processes. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

延迟学习判断研究的发展与展望

延迟学习判断是学习判断的一种形式,是指在材料学习完以后间隔一段时间才发生的学习判断。在与即时学习判断的对比研究中发现,延迟学习判断具有较高的相对准确性,这种现象被称为延迟学习判断效应。研究者进行了大量的研究并提出了多种理论来解释这种延迟学习判断效应。随着研究的不断深入,延迟学习判断的研究从研究指标、研究方法甚至是研究的理论基础都在不断更新。延迟学习判断的研究进展,包括主要理论和相关实验,以及最新研究成果将被介绍。最后,文章梳理了延迟JOL的研究进程,并指出了未来的研究方向。     

Time discounting over the lifespan

Several theories of intertemporal choice predict systematic age differences in the rate at which people discount the future. Different theories, however, predict different patterns: one predicts that discounting will decrease over the lifespan, so that young people will discount more than the middle aged or elderly, another suggests it will increase over the lifespan, and yet another suggests that the middle-aged will discount less than either the young or the old. We conduct a study testing these predictions. 123 respondents between the ages of 19 and 89 made a large number of time discounting decisions on both computerized and paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The results suppported the view that older people discount more than younger ones, and that middle aged people discount less than either group. This finding appears to contrast with earlier work (Green, Fry, & Myerson, 1994) but, as we show, our results are remarkably congruent with that study. We conclude by considering whether our results can be reconciled with the fact that young people commit more apparently impulsive acts than do the elderly.     

Can cognitive psychological research on reasoning enhance the discussion around moral judgments?

In this article we will demonstrate how cognitive psychological research on reasoning and decision making could enhance discussions and theories of moral judgments. In the first part, we will present recent dual-process models of moral judgments and describe selected studies which support these approaches. However, we will also present data that contradict the model predictions, suggesting that approaches to moral judgment might be more complex. In the second part, we will show how cognitive psychological research on reasoning might be helpful in understanding moral judgments. Specifically, we will highlight approaches addressing the interaction between intuition and reflection. Our data suggest that a sequential model of engaging in deliberation might have to be revised. Therefore, we will present an approach based on Signal Detection Theory and on intuitive conflict detection. We predict that individuals arrive at the moral decisions by comparing potential action outcomes (e.g., harm caused and utilitarian gain) simultaneously. The response criterion can be influenced by intuitive processes, such as heuristic moral value processing, or considerations of harm caused.     

重中之“重”——具身视角下重的体验与表征

关于重要性的隐喻存在于多种文化之中。近年来的实证研究表明, 重要性的隐喻建立在重量的身体体验之上。重量的身体经验会影响对目标对象重要性的评估, 重要性的概念表征也会影响身体的重量感知。重量的身体体验与重要性的概念可能存在着共同的神经基础, 并构成一种相互作用的关系。具身视角下的概念表征理论和隐喻理论为解释这一现象提供了理论依据。未来的研究需要进一步探索重量隐喻涉及的范围, 以及重量隐喻形成的语言文化差异。     

Relative and absolute duration judgments under prospective and retrospective paradigms

A dual-process contingency model of short duration judgment is proposed and tested. The first process, or P(t), is a timer that uses cognitive capacity to keep track of units of time. If capacity is directed toward other tasks, P(t) will record fewer units and produce lower time judgments than when capacity is not directed toward other tasks. This timing process is most likely to affect performance when people know in advance (prospective judgments) that time judgments will be required and when absolute, rather than relative, judgments are made. The second process, or P(m), which is used for retrospective and relative judgments, judges duration on the basis of the number of remembered high priority events (HPEs) occurring during the interval. When this process is used, time judgments increase with the amount of HPEs that can be retrieved at the moment of judgment. Two experiments are reported. Tactual stimuli were presented, and nontemporal information processing load (simple or complex stimuli), type of judgment (absolute or relative), and judgment paradigm (prospective or retrospective)were manipulated. The results obtained support the proposed dual-process contingency model.     

同伴特点如何影响人们的合作与冲突行为?

人类的生存繁衍依赖于人们之间的相互合作,合作与冲突行为的研究近年来成为心理学的研究热点。本研究通过实验程序操纵Chicken Game中博弈同伴的特点,考察个体在社会困境中面对不同特点同伴时的合作行为。结果发现：(1)同伴道义论组和功利论组总和解率没有显著差异,同伴竞争组和合作组的总和解率也没有显著差异。(2)在与道义论以及合作型的同伴互动时,个体的行为没有明显受到上次博弈反馈的影响。(3)当同伴为功利论时,相比于上次博弈个体选择和解而同伴选择进攻,双方都选择和解时个体在当前博弈中更倾向于和解;(4)在同伴竞争组中,相比于上次博弈个体选择进攻而同伴选择和解,双方都选择和解时被试在当前博弈中会更倾向于和解。实验结果表明个体在博弈任务中会受到同伴特点的影响,并且同伴在博弈中的行为特点的影响更为显著。本研究从同伴特点来考察个体的合作行为,揭示了影响个体博弈行为的一种因素。     

坏念头，罪几何？意图信息的强弱变化对大学生道德判断的影响

成人在对他人的行为进行道德判断时,对意图和结果信息的利用存在不稳定的现象。Cushman提出道德判断双加工过程理论,认为当存在重大负性后果时,需要综合考虑意图和结果信息;而当不存在负性后果时,主要关注意图信息。本研究通过句式变化操控意图信息的明显性,分别考察了两组大学生在对道德情景进行判断时意图信息强弱变化所造成的影响,结果发现：（1）对中性行为进行道德判断时,突显负性意图信息后被试会增加道德谴责;（2）对负性行为进行道德判断时,道德谴责程度没有因意图信息明显性的改变而发生显著变化。此研究结果表明,在行为结果为中性时,人们主要利用意图的信息做出道德判断,但此时对负性意图的谴责程度并不稳定,容易受明显性变化的干扰。     

Sequence learning in a dual-stimulus setting

Is sequence learning an autonomous process that relies on independent resources? In this paper, I attempt to answer this question by exploring whether sequence learning occurs even despite the availability of reliable explicit information about the material to be learned. I report on a series of experiments during which participants performed a sequential choice reaction task. On each trial, participants were exposed to a stimulus and to a cue of varying validity which, when valid, indicated where the next stimulus would appear. Participants could therefore optimize their performance either by implicitly encoding the sequential constraints contained in the material or by explicitly relying on the information conveyed by the cue. Some theories assume that implicit learning does not rely on the same processing resources as those involved in explicit learning. Such theories would thus predict that sensitivity to sequential constraints should not be affected by the presence of reliable explicit information about sequence structure. Other theories, by contrast, would predict that implicit learning would not occur in such cases. The results are consistent with the former theories, but simulation work meant to enable the implications of these contrasting theories to be explored suggests that such results are also obtainable in architectures in which two processing pathways share resources.     

Adult Age Differences in Dual Information Processes: Implications for the Role of Affective and Deliberative Processes in Older Adults' Decision Making

ABSTRACT— Age differences in affective/experiential and deliberative processes have important theoretical implications for judgment and decision theory and important pragmatic implications for older-adult decision making. Age-related declines in the efficiency of deliberative processes predict poorer-quality decisions as we age. However, age-related adaptive processes, including motivated selectivity in the use of deliberative capacity, an increased focus on emotional goals, and greater experience, predict better or worse decisions for older adults depending on the situation. The aim of the current review is to examine adult age differences in affective and deliberative information processes in order to understand their potential impact on judgments and decisions. We review evidence for the role of these dual processes in judgment and decision making and then review two representative life-span perspectives (based on aging-related changes to cognitive or motivational processes) on the interplay between these processes. We present relevant predictions for older-adult decisions and make note of contradictions and gaps that currently exist in the literature. Finally, we review the sparse evidence about age differences in decision making and how theories and findings regarding dual processes could be applied to decision theory and decision aiding. In particular, we focus on prospect theory ( Kahneman & Tversky, 1979 ) and how prospect theory and theories regarding age differences in information processing can inform one another.     

‘You Are What You Read:’ Is selective exposure a way people tell us who they are?

Selective exposure is the tendency to gather viewpoint-congenial versus viewpoint-uncongenial information. Extant models of selective exposure suggest this tendency occurs because people anticipate reading congenial (vs. uncongenial) information will cause more favourable intrapersonal consequences. However, these models ignore the notion that people's information choices are, in part, symbolic gestures designed to convey identity-relevant beliefs to an audience through information display. Drawing from perspectives that emphasize human consumption as symbolic and a way to signal one's identity, we suggest that selective exposure pertains not only to information processing but also to conveying identity through information display. Experiment 1 showed that people characterize information display as a way to communicate their views to an audience. Experiments 2–4 showed that people are averse to displaying uncongenial versus congenial information (without processing the information), anticipate feeling more uncomfortable and more inauthentic merely displaying (without processing) uncongenial versus congenial information, and that people's intentions to engage in selective exposure in daily life are a function of their belief that selective-exposure displays convey their identity. None of these studies or findings can be generated from extant selective-exposure theories. Thus, selective-exposure theories are likely incomplete because they ignore people's beliefs and goals regarding information display.     

Biases In Trials Involving Defendants Charged With Multiple Offenses1

Under federal and state laws, a defendant who has been charged with more than one offense can be tried for all the offenses in a single “joined” trial. It was predicted that the probabillty a defendant would be convicted would increase as a function of the number of joined offenses. Legal theories, research on memory, and social psychological models of information integration and attribution led to three hypotheses as to why this bias might occur: (1) confusion of evidence, (2) accumulation of evidence, and (3) inference of a criminal disposition. Subjects read and judged written trial summaries presented as joined or single trials. In Study 1, joinder resulted in higher rates of conviction and in confusion of evidence. In Study 2, the conviction results were replicated, and subjects judging joined trials also rated the evidence as more incriminating and made negative attributions about the defendant. These ratings were strongly related to judgments of guilt. A sequential judgment process was also found to affect jurors' judgments.     

预测特征竞争范式下的特征推理方式

当面临归类不确定的情景时,人们的特征推理是基于类别进行,还是基于特征联结进行,一直是类别研究中的重要内容。本研究采用预测特征竞争范式对这一问题进行了探究。共两个实验：实验1采用预测特征竞争范式探讨推理前预先归类时,人们的推理方式是基于类别还是基于特征联结。实验2采用预测特征竞争范式探讨推理前不预先归类时,人们的推理是基于类别还是基于特征联结。实验结果表明,推理前预先归类时,被试倾向于基于类别进行推理。推理前不预先归类时,被试倾向于根据特征联结进行推理。     

Reasoning about curvilinear motion: Using principles or analogy

People possess implicit theories about the motion of objects, theories that are often incorrect. When asked to predict the path of an object emerging from a curved tube, for example, people often say that the object will continue to follow a curved path. However, when solving a problem that reminds them of a familiar previous instance, people often reason by analogy to the instance. In this study, we show that a previous instance must be very superficially similar to a problem in order to be used as an analogy; otherwise, people will use their implicit theories as the basis of their reasoning.     

Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases

A cognitive-ecological approach to judgment biases is presented and substantiated by recent empirical evidence. Latent properties of the environment are not amenable to direct assessment but have to be inferred from empirical samples that provide the interface between cognition and the environment. The sampling process may draw on the external world or on internal memories. For systematic reasons (proximity, salience, and focus of attention), the resulting samples tend to be biased (selective, skewed, or conditional on information search strategies). Because people lack the metacognitive ability to understand and control for sampling constraints (predictor sampling, criterion sampling, selective-outcome sampling, etc.), the sampling biases carry over to subsequent judgments. Within this framework, alternative accounts are offered for a number of judgment biases, such as base-rate neglect, confirmation bias, illusory correlation, pseudo-contingency, Simpson's paradox, outgroup devaluation, and pragmatic-confusion effects.