旅游商品多语言包装策略的作用机制和影响效果——基于选择通达模型的视角

多语言包装策略被广泛应用于促进旅游商品的销售。然而, 现有研究仅从消费者感知视角出发, 难以揭示多语言线索的复杂效应。本研究基于选择通达模型, 主要探讨(1)多语言包装策略导致消费者推断旅游商品是针对某类群体(即对比效应)还是广泛模糊的“国际市场” (即同化效应)的作用机制; (2)多语言包装策略对旅游商品购买决策的影响机制。本研究有助于扩展旅游商品和包装语言的相关研究, 为旅游商品营销提供重要参考。     

Singular Clues to Causality and Their Use in Human Causal Judgment

It is argued that causal understanding originates in experiences of acting on objects. Such experiences have consistent features that can be used as clues to causal identification and judgment. These are singular clues, meaning that they can be detected in single instances. A catalog of 14 singular clues is proposed. The clues function as heuristics for generating causal judgments under uncertainty and are a pervasive source of bias in causal judgment. More sophisticated clues such as mechanism clues and repeated interventions are derived from the 14. Research on the use of empirical information and conditional probabilities to identify causes has used scenarios in which several of the clues are present, and the use of empirical association information for causal judgment depends on the presence of singular clues. It is the singular clues and their origin that are basic to causal understanding, not multiple instance clues such as empirical association, contingency, and conditional probabilities.     

CAT选题策略分类概述

选题是计算机化自适应测验（CAT）测试过程的关键环节,选题策略的目标是要达到较高的测量精度,同时也实现试题曝光率控制及其他测验目标的实现.本文根据选题策略的基本原理和衍生发展,将众多CAT选题策略分为五大选题策略系列：Fisher函数系列、K-LI函数系列、α分层系列、贝叶斯系列、b匹配系列;并根据测验目标（测验精度、试题曝光率控制、内容平衡、多条件约束）对这些选题策略进行了细分,并对CAT选题策略的选择思路进行归纳.     

A neural cognitive model of argumentation with application to legal inference and decision making

Formal models of argumentation have been investigated in several areas, from multi-agent systems and artificial intelligence (AI) to decision making, philosophy and law. In artificial intelligence, logic-based models have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. More recently, the standard logic-based models have been shown equivalent to standard connectionist models. This has created a new line of research where (i) neural networks can be used as a parallel computational model for argumentation and (ii) neural networks can be used to combine argumentation, quantitative reasoning and statistical learning. At the same time, non-standard logic models of argumentation started to emerge. In this paper, we propose a connectionist cognitive model of argumentation that accounts for both standard and non-standard forms of argumentation. The model is shown to be an adequate framework for dealing with standard and non-standard argumentation, including joint-attacks, argument support, ordered attacks, disjunctive attacks, meta-level attacks, self-defeating attacks, argument accrual and uncertainty. We show that the neural cognitive approach offers an adequate way of modelling all of these different aspects of argumentation. We have applied the framework to the modelling of a public prosecution charging decision as part of a real legal decision making case study containing many of the above aspects of argumentation. The results show that the model can be a useful tool in the analysis of legal decision making, including the analysis of what-if questions and the analysis of alternative conclusions. The approach opens up two new perspectives in the short-term: the use of neural networks for computing prevailing arguments efficiently through the propagation in parallel of neuronal activations, and the use of the same networks to evolve the structure of the argumentation network through learning (e.g. to learn the strength of arguments from data).     

Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics

ABSTRACT

Cognitive reflection is recognized as an important skill, which is necessary for making advantageous decisions. Even though gender differences in the Cognitive Reflection test (CRT) appear to be robust across multiple studies, little research has examined the source of the gender gap in performance. In Study 1, we tested the invariance of the scale across genders. In Study 2, we investigated the role of math anxiety, mathematical reasoning, and gender in CRT performance. The results attested the measurement equivalence of the Cognitive Reflection Test – Long (CRT- L), when administered to male and female students. Additionally, the results of the mediation analysis showed an indirect effect of gender on CRT-L performance through mathematical reasoning and math anxiety. The direct effect of gender was no longer statistically significant after accounting for the other variables. The current findings suggest that cognitive reflection is affected by numerical skills and related feelings.     

Investigating How Test-Takers Change Their Strategies to Handle Difficulty in Taking a Reading Comprehension Test: Implications for Score Validation

This article investigates how test-takers change their strategies to handle increased test difficulty. An adult sample reported their test-taking strategies immediately after completing the tasks in a reading test. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling specifying a measurement-invariant, ability-moderated, latent transition analysis in Mplus (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2011). It was found that almost half of the test-takers (47%) changed their strategies when encountering increased task-difficulty. The changes were characterized by augmenting comprehending-meaning strategies with score-maximizing and test-wiseness strategies. Moreover, test-takers' ability was the driving influence that facilitated and/or buffered the changes. The test outcomes, when reviewed in light of adjusted test-taking strategies, demonstrated a form of process-based validity evidence.     

Heuristics versus direct calculation,and age-related differences in multiplication: an evidence accumulation account of plausibility decisions in arithmetic

We offer a new theoretical angle for cognitive arithmetic, which is that evidence accumulation may play a role in problem plausibility decisions. We build upon previous studies that have considered such a hypothesis, and here formally evaluate the paradigm. We develop the finding that performance differences, due to variations in strategy use and aging effects, can indeed be reasonably explained through these accumulation-to-bound cognitive models. Results suggest that these models may be effectively used to learn more about the underlying cognitive processes. In this study, we modelled young (18–24) and older (68–82) adults’ solution times in performing arithmetic verification (e.g. whether 8?×?5?=?41 is true/false). The domain-relevant factors in strategy use (problem-verification heuristics) and aging differences (older/younger adult groups) were analyzed by a response process model of the latency data, that is fit by participant and item. Lower thresholds accounted for the faster response times (RTs) for problems solved with heuristics (arithmetic rule-violation checking strategies), as opposed to problems solved by calculation approaches. A more rapid accumulation accounted for faster RTs on problems in which two arithmetic rules were violated (strategy combination) rather than one. Third, higher thresholds (i.e. preferring to have greater certainty before responding) accounted for older adults’ slower speed. These findings are in support of accumulation models being relevant for more complex cognitive tasks, as well as to account for the age-related differences therein.     

Fundamental failure to think logically about scientific questions: An illustration of tunnel vision with the application of Wason's Card Selection Test to criminal evidence

Logic and science are in some respects fundamentally different disciplines, in that for example, application of rules of logic can yield conclusions that are at odds with physical reality. Not surprisingly, people have ample difficulty with logical thinking. Nonetheless, in some instances, logical thinking can fuel empirical decision making. In the current research, it was established that applying rules of logic to a particular area of empirical decision making, that is, criminal fact finding, is indeed quite difficult (Study 1). Furthermore, the ability to think logically was found to be associated with superior evaluation of criminal evidence (Study 2). Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Salience Versus Proportional Reasoning: Rethinking the Mechanism Behind Graphical Display Effects

Two experiments examined predictions from two separate explanations for previously observed display effects for communicating low‐probability risks: foreground:background salience and proportional reasoning. According to foreground:background salience, people's risk perceptions are based on the relative salience of the foreground (number of people harmed) versus the background (number of people at risk), such that calling attention to the background makes the risk seem smaller. Conversely, the proportional reasoning explanation states that what matters is whether the respondent attends to the proportion, which conveys how small the risk is. In Experiment 1, we made the background more salient via color and bolding; in contrast to the foreground:background salience prediction, this manipulation did not influence participants' risk aversion. In Experiment 2, we separately manipulated whether the foreground and the background were displayed graphically or numerically. In keeping with the proportional reasoning hypothesis, there was an interaction whereby participants given formats that displayed the foreground and background in the same modality (graphs or numbers, thereby making the proportion easier to form) saw the probability as smaller and were less risk averse than participants given the information in different modalities. There was also a main effect of displaying the background graphically, providing some support for foreground:background salience. In total, this work suggests that the proportional reasoning account provides a good explanation of many display effects related to communicating low‐probability risks, although there is some role for foreground:background salience as well. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does mediator use contribute to the spacing effect for cued recall? Critical tests of the mediator hypothesis

When study is spaced across sessions (versus massed within a single session), final performance is greater after spacing. This spacing effect may have multiple causes, and according to the mediator hypothesis, part of the effect can be explained by the use of mediator-based strategies. This hypothesis proposes that when study is spaced across sessions, rather than massed within a session, more mediators will be generated that are longer lasting and hence more mediators will be available to support criterion recall. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to study paired associates using either a spaced or massed schedule. They reported strategy use for each item during study trials and during the final test. Consistent with the mediator hypothesis, participants who had spaced (as compared to massed) practice reported using more mediators on the final test. This use of effective mediators also statistically accounted for some – but not all of – the spacing effect on final performance.