不同形式的锚定值对时距估计决策过程的影响

采用基本锚定范式,以时间词和物理时距分别作为数字锚定值和物理锚定值,探讨了不同形式和大小的锚定值如何影响产生法（实验1）和口头估计法（实验2）中的时距估计的决策过程。55名在校大学生参加了本次实验。实验结果表明,数字锚定值被作为时距估计的调整起始点,对决策过程中的数值估计产生同化影响;物理锚定值则被作为时距估计的比较标准,同化产生法中的决策估计值,对口头估计法中的决策估计值却产生对比影响。     

听觉经验缺失对时距估计影响的实验研究

采用复制法,通过聋人与听力正常人时距估计的对比实验研究,结果发现听觉经验缺失对时距估计有一定的影响：（1）两类被试在2000ms和10000ms的时距估计中,再现时距的平均数表现出了显著性差异。听力正常被试倾向于低估时距,聋人被试倾向于高估时距。（2）聋人被试不同时距再现相对误差率之间不存在显著性差异;听力正常被试时距再现相对错误率在2000ms与10000ms、30000ms存在显著差异,10000ms和30000ms之间差异不显著。     

1s范围视听时距认知的分段性研究

时距认知分段性指不同长度时距加工机制和表征方式不同。以往研究对1s范围时距认知分段性仍存在分歧,为此在规避以往研究局限基础上设计实验1和实验2。实验1和实验2分别采用双任务范式探讨心算任务对100ms和1000ms听、视时距比较的选择性干扰,结果表明,心算任务影响了1000ms听、视时距比较的75%差别阈限,心算加工负荷越大,75%差别阈限越大,但对100ms听、视时距比较的75%差别阈限没有影响。两项实验支持了1s范围视、听时距认知均具有分段性。     

疼痛条件下时间目标对时距估计的影响

本研究采用冷压任务引发疼痛,以健康大学生为被试,试图探讨在疼痛条件下时间目标对时距估计的影响。结果发现：疼痛条件下的时距估计值小于非疼痛条件下时距估计值,疼痛条件下具体时间目标的时距估计值显著大于无目标时距估计值。临床上给患者提供具体的时间目标或许有助于他们应对疼痛。     

时距估计年龄差异的认知机制

采用双任务的实验范式,通过对（5s、13s和26s）三个目标时距的产生法和复制法的结果来探讨时距估计年龄差异的认知机制。实验结果表明,在不同目标时距和不同的估计方法上均存在显著的年龄效应。年老被试在产生法上比年轻被试显著高估时距,存在非时间任务和年龄的交互作用,随着任务难度的增加年老被试会比年轻被试产生更长的时距。而在复制法上年老被试比年轻被试显著低估时距,但是只有在长时距条件下（26s）存在非时间任务和年龄的交互作用。本研究结果表明年老被试在产生法上对时距的高估可能与内部时钟减慢和注意资源减少有关,而在复制法上对时距的低估可能反映注意资源的减少。此外,对于长时距的时间复制,情节记忆的损伤也是导致时距估计年龄差异的一个可能原因。     

时距的短时保持: 缩短还是变长

采用Wearden和Ferrara(1993)的经典方法, 分别考察了1s以下(350 ms~650 ms)和1s以上(1000 ms ~ 2000 ms)不同类型(空、实时距)和通道(视、听)时距的短时保持效应。实验1发现, 不同刺激通道条件下, 1s以下时距的短时保持都呈现出主观缩短, 其中视觉条件比听觉条件明显; 实验2表明, 1s以上时距在不同刺激通道条件下都呈现出主观变长, 其中听觉条件比视觉条件明显。分析表明, 主观缩短趋势可能是由主观缩短效应和正的顺序误差效应共同作用所致, 而主观变长趋势是由主观变长效应和负的顺序误差效应造成的。     

预期式时距估计年龄差异的初步研究

以5s、13s和26s为目标时距,采用产生法和复制法,探讨了预期式条件下时距估计的年龄差异。结果表明在单任务作业中。年老被试和年轻被试两个年龄组之间估计时距的平均值没有显著差异,但年老被试比年轻被试的估计时距具有更大的变异性。单一的内部时钟频率变化的假设并不能对单任务条件下时距估计的年龄差异做出合理的解释。时距估计的年龄差异可能是内部时钟频率变化和认知过程变化交互作用的结果。     

时距估计任务中的间断期望效应

使用单任务研究程序,采用引入提示线索的方法,以产生时距作为反应指标对存在间断的时距估计任务中的间断期望效应和提示线索效应（注意效应）进行系统考察,并对间断时距的效应、产生时距与等待时距的关系问题作出进一步探讨。结果表明,间断位置（等待时距）因素是被试时间判断的主要线索,被试的产生时距随着等待时距的增加而延长。间断实验中表现出极其显著的提示线索效应,此效应既增加了时距估计的变异,又延长了被试的时距估计。无间断实验条件下,被试表现出显著的间断期望效应,被试对间断的期望有损于时间估计。     

锚定效应的产生前提及作用机制

为了探讨锚定效应的产生前提以及基础锚定效应的理论解释,设计了两个实验。实验一选取高、低、无三种锚值,设置了15ms、45ms、75ms、1000ms四种呈现时间,结果发现只有15ms条件下未出现锚定效应,随着呈现时间增加,锚定效应不断增大,低锚下的锚定效应高于高锚下的锚定效应。实验二设置了语意相同但表述形式不同的两种水平的锚值,结果发现两者引发的锚定效应不同。锚定效应的产生前提是注意,数字启动假说可以更好地解释基础锚定效应。     

熟练维-汉双语者第二语言的概念表征的特征

以母语为维吾尔语,第二语言为汉语的的维吾尔族大学生为被试,使用语言内和语言间启动条件下的真假字判断任务,通过3个实验探讨了熟练的维汉双语者的第二语言的语义表征的特点,即他们的第二语言的语义表征是共同存储的还是独立存储的。结果发现,实验1语言内启动条件下,即启动刺激（维语）和目标刺激（维语）之间具有语义联想关系时,产生了显著的启动效应。实验2（启动刺激为维语,目标刺激为汉语）和实验3（启动刺激为汉语,目标刺激为维语）的跨语言启动条件下,都产生了显著的启动效应,说明被试的第二语言的语义表征是共同存储的。这些结果表明：被试的第二语言的概念表征是同第一语言的概念表征共同存储的,支持了共同存储理论。     

Anchoring in time estimation

In two experiments, an anchoring account of the misestimation of future task duration was tested. This account states that such misestimation occurs because previous task duration serves as an anchor for predictions, leading to underestimation when a longer task follows a shorter one and overestimation when a shorter task follows a longer one. Before estimating the duration of a focal task, participants selected a figure (anchor) of a longer or shorter duration produced by other participants in previous research on the same task (Experiment 1) or a different task (Experiment 2). In both experiments, misestimation differed according to the relative duration of the anchor to the focal task. Underestimation occurred with the shorter anchor and overestimation occurred with the longer one, suggesting that estimates were distorted in the direction of the anchors. This finding is discussed in relation to the role of prior task experience in moderating this anchoring effect.     

Anchors distort estimates of expected duration

This research explored the effect of presenting participants an anchor, which is a salient standard of comparison, before asking them to estimate the amount of time they believe they will need to complete a task (expected duration estimation). Such anchors can be assumed to be common in real-life situations, e.g., duration suggestions made by work colleagues. Participants were 32 students (M age = 23.1 yr., SD = 3.2; 28 women) who received course credit for participating. In the presence or absence of one of two anchors they had to estimate how much time they would need to work on a catalogue task. Actual time needed for the task was also measured. As predicted, analysis showed that estimates of expected duration were distorted in the direction of the anchors, i.e., estimations were assimilated into the presented anchor value. The implications for time management are discussed.     

数字加工任务影响时距知觉的数字效应

本研究采用复制时距和数字加工双任务,探讨数字大小影响时距知觉的机制。实验首先呈现不同时距的圆点,然后让被试按键复制圆点呈现的时距,与此同时,对屏幕上出现的数字进行命名(实验1)、奇偶数判断(实验2)、大小判断(实验3)。实验结果发现对数字进行奇偶数判断时,数字大小对时距知觉没有影响;进行数字命名和大小判断任务时,数字大小对时距知觉都产生了影响,并且时距不同,数字大小对时距知觉的影响也不同。该结果表明时距知觉的数字效应与数字加工任务和时距长短有关,呈现出动态变化的过程。     

内在锚与外在锚对锚定效应及其双加工机制的影响

通过2（外在锚类型：高锚VS低锚）×2（内在锚类型：有VS无）被试间设计,考察不同锚定信息来源：由外部世界提供的外在锚与个体自身内部产生的内在锚信息对锚定效应及其加工机制的影响。结果发现：（1）当内在锚不存在时,外在高低锚组的估计值有显著差异,当内在锚存在时此种差异变得不显著;（2）当内在锚存在时,外在高低锚组被试的答题反应时有显著差异,内在锚与外在锚一致时反应时比不一致时更快,当内在锚不存在时,此种差异变得不显著。实验结果表明,当锚定调整机制与选择通达机制同时存在时,前者更占优势;锚定信息一致性会影响不同加工机制的启动,一致的信息会激活选择通达机制,不一致的信息则会激活锚定调整机制。     

Anchoring effects in the judgment of confidence: Semantic or numeric priming?

Over the last decade, researchers have debated whether anchoring effects are the result of semantic or numeric priming. The present study tested both hypotheses. In four experiments involving a sensory detection task, participants first made a relative confidence judgment by deciding whether they were more or less confident than an anchor value in the correctness of their decision. Subsequently, they expressed an absolute level of confidence. In two of these experiments, the relative confidence anchor values represented the midpoints between the absolute confidence scale values, which were either explicitly numeric or semantic, nonnumeric representations of magnitude. In two other experiments, the anchor values were drawn from a scale modally different from that used to express the absolute confidence (i.e., nonnumeric and numeric, respectively, or vice versa). Regardless of the nature of the anchors, the mean confidence ratings revealed anchoring effects only when the relative and absolute confidence values were drawn from identical scales. Together, the results of these four experiments limit the conditions under which both numeric and semantic priming would be expected to lead to anchoring effects.     

Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors

People's estimates of uncertain quantities are commonly influenced by irrelevant values. These anchoring effects were originally explained as insufficient adjustment away from an initial anchor value. The existing literature provides little support for the postulated process of adjustment, however, and a consensus that none takes place seems to be emerging. We argue that this conclusion is premature, and we present evidence that insufficient adjustment produces anchoring effects when the anchors are self-generated. In Study 1, participants' verbal reports made reference to adjustment only from self-generated anchors. In Studies 2 and 3, participants induced to accept values by nodding their heads gave answers that were closer to an anchor (i.e., they adjusted less) than participants induced to deny values by shaking their heads—again, only when the anchor was self-generated. These results suggest it is time to reintroduce anchoring and adjustment as an explanation for some judgments under uncertainty.     

Are adjustments insufficient?

Many judgmental biases are thought to be the product of insufficient adjustment from an initial anchor value. Nearly all existing evidence of insufficient adjustment, however, comes from an experimental paradigm that evidence indicates does not involve adjustment at all. In this article, the authors first provide further evidence that some kinds of anchors (those that are self-generated and known to be incorrect but close to the correct answer) activate processes of adjustment, whereas others (uncertain anchors provided by an external source) do not. It is then shown that adjustment from self-generated anchors does indeed tend to be insufficient, both by comparing the estimates of participants starting from different anchor values and by comparing estimates with actual answers. Thus, evidence is provided of adjustment-based anchoring effects similar to the accessibility-based anchoring effects observed in the traditional anchoring paradigm, supporting theories of social judgment that rely on mechanisms of insufficient adjustment.     

How many migrants are people willing to welcome into their country? The effect of numerical anchoring on migrants’ acceptance

How many migrants are people willing to welcome into their country? Relying on a classical anchoring paradigm, we investigated the effect of numerical anchors reported in communication media echoing political positions regarding how many migrants should be accepted in one country. Four studies (N = 601) tested the effect of a numerical anchor within a politician’s statement on the number of migrants that people think should be accepted in their home country. Across studies, we found a strong anchor effect (average Cohen’s d = 1.40, 95% CI [1.18, 1.63]): participants were willing to accept a higher (vs. lower) number of migrants following a high (vs. low) anchor. Importantly, the effect occurred among both left wing‐ and right wing‐oriented participants, although being slightly smaller among the latter (Study 3). Moreover, it was independent from the political party serving as the source for the anchors as well as participants’ attitude toward these political parties (Study 4). Relevance of the present findings for persuasion and political decision‐making literature is discussed.