Evidence for an explanation advantage in naïve biological reasoning

The present studies compare young children’s explanations and predictions for the biological phenomenon of contamination. In Study 1, 36 preschoolers and 24 adults heard vignettes concerning contamination, and were asked either to make a prediction or to provide an explanation. Even 3-year-olds readily supplied contamination-based explanations, and most children mentioned an unseen mechanism (germs, contact through bodily fluids). Moreover, unlike adults who performed at ceiling across both explanation and prediction tasks, children were significantly more accurate with their explanations than their predictions. In Study 2, we varied the strength of cues regarding the desirability of the contaminated substance (N = 24 preschoolers). Although desirability affected responses, for both levels of desirability participants were significantly more accurate on explanation than prediction questions. Altogether, these studies demonstrate a significant “explanation advantage” for children’s reasoning in the domain of everyday biology.     

《周易》神韵的文化透视——《坤》“龙战于野”的再认识

“战”之词义,主要有两解：一曰交战,一曰交媾。本文认为“战”在哲学层面上体现为斗争与相合的统一,相合是其本质,“交战”义则违背了“生生之谓易”之至理;征之帛书《周易》和《焦氏易林》．认为“战”确有“交媾”义,怛“交媾”未能传达《易》“战”形神兼备之神韵：“战”既勃发着流宕不羁的野性,又凸现至情至睦之质;既充满情感,又饱含形象性,它是远古时代情蕴的写照。对于这样一个浓缩了《周易》精神的词汇,我们应该从哲学和情感两个层面上把握它。而不应该简单化、机械化地观照它。     

Non-bayesian inference: causal structure trumps correlation

The study tests the hypothesis that conditional probability judgments can be influenced by causal links between the target event and the evidence even when the statistical relations among variables are held constant. Three experiments varied the causal structure relating three variables and found that (a) the target event was perceived as more probable when it was linked to evidence by a causal chain than when both variables shared a common cause; (b) predictive chains in which evidence is a cause of the hypothesis gave rise to higher judgments than diagnostic chains in which evidence is an effect of the hypothesis; and (c) direct chains gave rise to higher judgments than indirect chains. A Bayesian learning model was applied to our data but failed to explain them. An explanation-based hypothesis stating that statistical information will affect judgments only to the extent that it changes beliefs about causal structure is consistent with the results.     

关于知觉干扰效应的ERP研究

利用ERP技术,采用知觉干扰效应的经典实验范式,首次从神经生理水平上探究知觉干扰效应的内部机制。结果发现,递进条件和标准条件均诱发了P2,P3,N400和晚期正成分LPC。在P2,P3和LPC成分上,标准条件的波幅均显著大于递进条件;在N400成分上,递进条件比标准条件波幅更负,潜伏期更长。此外,对递进条件下靶字各模糊水平（Level 1～Level 5）的ERPs进行比较分析表明,N400成分的波幅在各模糊水平间的差异均不显著。基本支持失匹配理论及词汇自动加工理论。     

组织中的申述

组织中的申述指发生在组织环境中的解释。在理论上,研究者采用印象管理和归因、互动公正以及公平理论三种视角探讨申述对缓和组织困境的作用。在方法上,研究者除了使用关键事件调查和实验室实验法之外,发展了“置于情境的实验”方法。在研究成果上,发现申述除了具有积极作用之外,有时也具有反作用和副作用。文章还讨论了申述的应用价值     

Ambiguous probabilities: when does p=0.3 reflect a possibility,and when does it express a doubt?

Verbal phrases denoting uncertainty are usually held to be more vague than numerical probability statements. They are, however, directionally more precise, in the sense that they are either positive, suggesting the occurrence of a target outcome, or negative, drawing attention to its non‐occurrence. A numerical probability will, in contrast, sometimes be perceived as positive and sometimes as negative. When asked to complete sentences such as ‘The operation has a 30% chance of success, because’ some people will give reasons for success (‘the doctors are expert surgeons’), whereas others will give reasons for failure (‘it is a difficult operation’). It is shown in two experiments that positive reasons are given more often than negative ones, even for p values below 0.5, especially when the probability is higher than expected, and the target outcome is non‐normal, undesirable, and phrased as a negation. We conclude that the directionality of numerical probabilities (as opposed to verbal phrases) is context‐dependent, but biased towards a positive interpretation. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparisons in research and reasoning: Toward an integrative theory of social induction

Strong scientific theories give coherence to a body of research findings, make precise predictions about key phenomena, and guide the search for new discoveries. In social psychology, some contemporary theories fall short of this ideal. Mini-theories are prevalent (cf. Van Lange, Higgins, & Kruglanski, 2011), many predictions are merely directional (like this one!) and theorizing post-hoc. Guided by experimental reasoning, many researchers emphasize—and reify—empirical differences. Taking the experimental method as an epistemological gold standard, they regard comparative thinking as a criterion of rational thinking. Using examples from social judgment and decision making, we show how comparative reasoning can constrain theoretical development and bias assessments of human rationality. To encourage movement toward stronger theory, we describe a model of inductive reasoning in social contexts.