用典型相关进一步研究大学生亲社会倾向和亲社会推理的关系

本研究使用修订后的亲社会倾向量表(PTM)和亲社会客观推理量表(PROM),对大学生群体进行了测查,并采用简单相关和典型相关探讨亲社会倾向和亲社会推理的关系。结果表明:大学生的亲社会倾向由高到低依次为:紧急的、利他的、情绪的、依从的、匿名的和公开的;他们的亲社会推理由高到低依次是:需要定向、刻板定向、内化价值定向、享乐主义定向和赞扬定向。6种亲社会倾向都与刻板定向推理、内化价值定向推理正相关;紧急的、依从的亲社会倾向与需要定向推理正相关;匿名的亲社会倾向与享乐主义定向推理负相关。从典型相关分析结果来看,两者间的整体关联程度没有理论预期的高,典型变量所代表的亲社会倾向主要是紧急的、匿名的、依从的亲社会倾向,而这些亲社会倾向主要由内化价值定向推理、刻板定向推理、需要定向推理来解释。     

A Semantics for Means-end Relations

There has been considerable work on practical reasoning in artificial intelligence and also in philosophy. Typically, such reasoning includes premises regarding means–end relations. A clear semantics for such relations is needed in order to evaluate proposed syllogisms. In this paper, we provide a formal semantics for means–end relations, in particular for necessary and sufficient means–end relations. Our semantics includes a non-monotonic conditional operator, so that related practical reasoning is naturally defeasible. This work is primarily an exercise in conceptual analysis, aimed at clarifying and eventually evaluating existing theories of practical reasoning (pending a similar analysis regarding desires, intentions and other relevant concepts). “They were in conversation without speaking. They didn’t need to speak. They just changed reality so that they had spoken.” Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man     

An Information Processing Theory of Ambivalence

This paper analyzes the sources of ambivalence toward political parties and candidates. We propose and test an information-processing theory of ambivalence in which systematic processing is hypothesized to heighten partisan and candidate ambivalence. We show that ambivalence is linked to several dispositional sources of systematic processing, including individuals' information, motivation, and cognitive style. Specifically, we find that ambivalence tends to be greater among the well informed and those who are high in need for cognition while it tends to be lower among those motivated by directional goals. Collectively, our results suggest that levels of partisan and candidate ambivalence are greatest among those most likely to engage in effortful processing of information and that these effects are independent of value conflict. The results further suggest that the effects of effortful processing on ambivalence are moderated by attitude commitment.     

The executive demands of strategic reasoning are modified by the way in which children are prompted to think about the task: Evidence from 3- to 4-year-olds

We investigated a test of strategic reasoning (the Windows task) that in different studies has yielded contrasting pictures of young children's executive abilities [Russell, J., Mauthner, N., Sharpe, S., & Tidswell, T. (1991). The “windows task” as a measure of strategic deception in preschoolers and autistic subjects. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 331–349; Samuels, M. C., Brooks, P. J., & Frye, D. (1996). Strategic game playing through the windows task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 159–172]. An experiment with 52 three- to four-year-olds showed robust effects of different wordings for the prompts used to ask children to respond, and found that a single exposure to the facilitating wording led to improved performance on subsequent trials where the standard wording was used. This suggests that the effect of the wording was to help children infer an appropriate basis for responding, and not to reduce the trial-by-trial working memory or inhibitory demands of the task.     

Arguments,Meta-arguments,and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe,Govier, and Woods

Krabbe (2003, in F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644) defined a metadialogue as a dialogue about one or more dialogues, and a ground-level dialogue as a dialogue that is not a metadialogue. Similarly, I define a meta-argument as an argument about one or more arguments, and a ground-level argument as one which is not a meta-argument. Krabbe (1995, in F.H van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 333–344) showed that formal-fallacy criticism (and more generally, fallacy criticism) consists of metadialogues, and that such metadialogues can be profiled in ways that lead to their proper termination or resolution. I reconstruct Krabbe’s metadialogical account into monolectical, meta-argumentative terminology by describing three-types of meta-arguments corresponding to the three ways of proving formal invalidity he studied: the trivial logic-indifferent method; the method of counterexample situation; and the method of formal paraphrase. A fourth type of meta-argument corresponds to what Oliver (1967, Mind 76, 463–478), Govier (1985, Informal Logic 7, 27–33), and Copi (1986) call refutation by logical analogy. A fifth type of meta-argument represents my reconstruction of arguments by parity of reasoning studied by Woods and Hudak (1989, Informal Logic 11, 125–139). Other particular meta-arguments deserving future study are Hume’s critique of the argument from design in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and Mill’s initial argument in The Subjection of Women about the importance of established custom and general feeling vis-à-vis argumentation.     

Children's Social and Moral Reasoning About Exclusion

ABSTRACT— Developmental research on social and moral reasoning about exclusion has utilized a social-domain theory, in contrast to a global stage theory, to investigate children's evaluations of gender- and race-based peer exclusion. The social-domain model postulates that moral, social-conventional, and personal reasoning coexist in children's evaluations of inclusion and exclusion, and that the priority given to these forms of judgments varies by the age of the child, the context, and the target of exclusion. Findings from developmental intergroup research studies disconfirm a general-stage-model approach to morality in the child, and provide empirical data on the developmental origins and emergence of intergroup attitudes regarding prejudice, bias, and exclusion.     

4～5岁儿童单双维类比推理能力的发展水平和特点

研究了儿童单双维类比推理能力的发展水平和特点。被试为 4岁到 5岁儿童 4 2名 ,男 19名 ,女 2 3名。三种实验条件分别为控制组、单维组、双维组 ,采用体现因果关系的图片类比推理材料。结果表明 :在具备相应知识经验的前提下 ,4岁组到 5 5岁组儿童的单维类比推理能力已接近形成 ,没有显著的年龄差异 ;4岁组到 5 5岁组儿童的双维类比推理能力均还处于较低的发展水平 ,但年龄差异显著 ,其中 5 5岁组儿童明显优于 5岁组 ,5岁组和 4 5岁组之间没有显著差异 ,4 5岁组显著优于 4岁组 ,在一定程度上反映出 4 5～ 5 5岁为儿童发展双维类比推理的“快速增长期”。实验中没有发现“练习效应”。     

Cogex: A semantically and contextually enriched logic prover for question answering

This paper presents the architecture and functionality of a logic prover designed for question answering. The approach transforms questions and answer passages into logic representations based on syntactic, semantic and contextual information. World knowledge supplements the linguistic, ontological, and temporal axioms supplied to the prover which renders a deep understanding of the relationship between the question and answer text. The trace of the proofs provides a basis for generating human comprehensible answer justifications. The results show that the prover boosts the performance of the Question Answering system on TREC 2004 questions by 12%.     

决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统

近来,在决策与推理的研究中,研究者提出了双系统作用模型：基于直觉的启发式系统和基于理性的分析系统。启发式系统加工速度较快,不占用或占用很少的心理资源,容易受背景相似性、刻板印象的影响;分析系统加工速度慢,占用较多的心理资源,遵从逻辑和规则,而且两个系统有不同进化历史和神经基础。该文根据已有的相关研究,综述了双系统在决策与推理中可能的作用机制、相互关系、个体差异,同时指出了目前研究存在的不足     

非形式推理的研究及展望

非形式推理目前被界定为对结构不良的、用自然语言表述的、没有固定答案的、需要进行归纳的问题的推理,推理的结果是个体对问题形成一定的态度和观点。已有研究探讨了非形式推理的一般特征、衡量标准、影响推理的个体特征,以及学生非形式推理能力的培养方式等问题。作者认为开展非形式推理及其影响因素的研究将促进人格特征与认知关系的研究,并有广泛的教育意义,同时提出了有待深入研究的课题。