Can an agent's false belief be corrected by an appropriate communication? Psychological reasoning in 18-month-old infants

Do 18-month-olds understand that an agent's false belief can be corrected by an appropriate, though not an inappropriate, communication? In Experiment 1, infants watched a series of events involving two agents, a ball, and two containers: a box and a cup. To start, agent1 played with the ball and then hid it in the box, while agent2 looked on. Next, in agent1's absence, agent2 moved the ball from the box to the cup. When agent1 returned, agent2 told her "The ball is in the cup!" (informative-intervention condition) or "I like the cup!" (uninformative-intervention condition). During test, agent1 reached for either the box (box event) or the cup (cup event). In the informative-intervention condition, infants who saw the box event looked reliably longer than those who saw the cup event; in the uninformative-intervention condition, the reverse pattern was found. These results suggest that infants expected agent1's false belief about the ball's location to be corrected when she was told "The ball is in the cup!", but not "I like the cup!". In Experiment 2, agent2 simply pointed to the ball's new location, and infants again expected agent1's false belief to be corrected. These and control results provide additional evidence that infants in the second year of life can attribute false beliefs to agents. In addition, the results suggest that by 18 months of age infants expect agents' false beliefs to be corrected by relevant communications involving words or gestures.     

The psychology of meta-ethics: exploring objectivism

How do lay individuals think about the objectivity of their ethical beliefs? Do they regard them as factual and objective, or as more subjective and opinion-based, and what might predict such differences? In three experiments, we set out a methodology for assessing the perceived objectivity of ethical beliefs, and use it to document several novel findings. Experiment 1 showed that individuals tend to regard ethical statements as clearly more objective than social conventions and tastes, and almost as objective as scientific facts. Yet, there was considerable variation in objectivism, both across different ethical statements, and across individuals. The extent to which individuals treat ethical beliefs as objective was predicted by the way they grounded their ethical systems. Groundings which emphasize the religious, pragmatic, and self-identity underpinnings of ethical belief each independently predicted greater ethical objectivity. Experiment 2 replicated and extended these findings with a refined measure of ethical objectivism. Experiment 3 demonstrated the robustness of the religious grounding of ethics, and differentiates it from mere religious belief and from political orientation. The results shed light on the nature of ethical belief, and have implications for the resolution of ethical disputes.     

Sample diversity and premise typicality in inductive reasoning: evidence for developmental change

Evaluating whether a limited sample of evidence provides a good basis for induction is a critical cognitive task. We hypothesized that whereas adults evaluate the inductive strength of samples containing multiple pieces of evidence by attending to the relations among the exemplars (e.g., sample diversity), six-year-olds would attend to the degree to which each individual exemplar in a sample independently appears informative (e.g., premise typicality). To test these hypotheses, participants were asked to select between diverse and non-diverse samples to help them learn about basic-level animal categories. Across various between-subject conditions (N=133), we varied the typicality present in the diverse and non-diverse samples. We found that adults reliably selected to examine diverse over non-diverse samples, regardless of exemplar typicality, six-year-olds preferred to examine samples containing typical exemplars, regardless of sample diversity, and nine-year-olds were somewhat in the midst of this developmental transition.     

Optimal Predictions in Everyday Cognition: The Wisdom of Individuals or Crowds?

Griffiths and Tenenbaum (2006) asked individuals to make predictions about the duration or extent of everyday events (e.g., cake baking times), and reported that predictions were optimal, employing Bayesian inference based on veridical prior distributions. Although the predictions conformed strikingly to statistics of the world, they reflect averages over many individuals. On the conjecture that the accuracy of the group response is chiefly a consequence of aggregating across individuals, we constructed simple, heuristic approximations to the Bayesian model premised on the hypothesis that individuals have access merely to a sample of k instances drawn from the relevant distribution. The accuracy of the group response reported by Griffiths and Tenenbaum could be accounted for by supposing that individuals each utilize only two instances. Moreover, the variability of the group data is more consistent with this small-sample hypothesis than with the hypothesis that people utilize veridical or nearly veridical representations of the underlying prior distributions. Our analyses lead to a qualitatively different view of how individuals reason from past experience than the view espoused by Griffiths and Tenenbaum.     

Reward Systems,Moral Reasoning,and Internal Auditors’ Reporting Wrongdoing

This study investigates the issue of whistle-blowing behavior that results from internal auditors discovering company wrongdoing in the process of preparing financial information. An experiment was conducted to examine whether reward systems such as cash incentives or employment contracts have an impact on auditors’ disclosing wrongdoing behavior. The results indicate that internal auditors are more likely to report wrongdoing to higher authorities when incentives are provided, suggesting reward systems have a positive effect on disclosing company’s wrongdoing or even fraud. In addition, the result reveals that internal auditors with lower levels of moral reasoning are more sensitive to cash incentives.     

The public's probabilistic numeracy: How tasks,education and exposure to games of chance shape it

As we navigate a world full of uncertainties and risks, dominated by statistics, we need to be able to think statistically. Very few studies investigating people's ability to understand simple concepts and rules from probability theory have drawn representative samples from the public. For this reason we investigated a representative sample of 1000 Swiss citizens, using six probabilistic problems. Most reasoned appropriately in problems representing pure applications of probability theory, but failed to do so in approximations of real‐world scenarios – a disparity we replicated in a sample of first‐year psychology students. Additionally, education is associated with probabilistic numeracy in the former but not the latter type of problems. We discuss possible reasons for these task disparities and suggest that gaining a comprehensive picture of citizens' probabilistic competence and its determinants requires using both types of tasks. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On Using Ethical Theories to Teach Engineering Ethics

Many engineering ethics classes and textbooks introduce theories such as utilitarianism and Kantianism (and most others draw from these theories without mentioning them explicitly). Yet using ethical theories to teach engineering ethics is not devoid of difficulty. First, their status is unclear (should one pick a single theory or use them all? does it make a difference?) Also, textbooks generally assume or fallaciously ‘prove’ that egoism (or even simply accounting for one’s interests) is wrong. Further, the drawbacks of ethical theories are underestimated and the theories are also otherwise misrepresented to make them more suitable for engineering ethics as the authors construe it, viz. the ‘moral reasoning’ process. Stating in what various theories disagree would allow the students to frame the problem more productively in terms of motive–consequence or society–individual dichotomies rather than in terms of Kant–utilitarian.     

3～5岁幼儿在主题-规则冲突条件下的类比推理

本研究采用经典类比任务,考察了3～5岁幼儿在主题-规则冲突条件下类比推理发展的水平与特点.结果表明:(1)在无主题联想条件下,幼儿的单维类比推理在3～4岁迅速发展,4～5岁发展较为平缓,而双维类比推理在3～5岁仍处于较低水平.(2)在主题—规则冲突条件下,幼儿在单维类比推理中表现出一定的主题联想优势反应;幼儿在双维类比推理中表现出较强的主题联想优势反应,年龄特点为:3岁幼儿有较强的主题联想优势反应,4岁幼儿的主题联想优势反应明显下降,而5岁幼儿又表现出较强的主题联想优势反应.     

“直觉调整差误”偏向对贝叶斯推理成绩的影响

采用贝叶斯推理问题作为实验材料,探讨被试解决贝叶斯推理问题的启发式策略,从认知偏向的角度分析该问题的困难原因。结果发现:(1)贝叶斯推理问题解决过程中的可得性启发与后验概率估计过程中的直觉调整差误密切相关;(2)贝叶斯推理问题解决过程中文、理科被试都同样会产生直觉调整差误偏向;(3)贝叶斯推理问题解决过程中的后验概率估计值和对推理问题中包括虚报率信息的命题的可得性测量所得主观概率之间存在显著的负相关。     

Triangulating Political Responsibility: The Motivated Formation of Responsibility Judgments

This article analyzes the process through which partisan bias arises during the formation of citizens' judgments of political responsibility. Informed by theories of motivated political reasoning, it argues that exposure to partisan cues motivates partisans to pursue directional goals, goals which bias the cognitive processing of information and, in turn, overall judgments of responsibility. It further argues that the nature of this biased processing will be such that partisans devalue information inconsistent with their partisan affect. Using a pair of experiments, I test these hypotheses by manipulating both objective evidence concerning gubernatorial responsibility for a state's fiscal imbalance and the presence of partisan cues. Findings support both sets of expectations. The results also suggest that the effects of partisan bias are greater in judgments tied to institutional actions than in those tied to institutional roles and expectations.