归纳推理属性效应中背景关系提取原则的探究

  本文关键词：归纳推理属性效应中背景关系提取原则的探究，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。

1154 心 理 学 报 42卷

Kalish, C. W., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). On wooden pillows: Multiple classifications and children’s category-based inductions. Child Development, 63, 1536–1557.

Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 116(1), 20–58.

Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 3–28.

Lopez, A., Atran, S., Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folk-biological taxonomies and inductions. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 251–295.

Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1996). Drinking and driving don’t mix: Inductive generalization in infancy. Cognition, 59, 307–335.

Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 60–96.

Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195), Cambridge.

Robinson, L. B., & Hastie, R. (1985). Revision of beliefs when a hypothesis is eliminated from consideration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 11, 443–456.

Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 495–553. Sachs, O., Weis, S., Krings, T., Huber, W., & Kircher, T. (2008). Categorical and thematic knowledge representation in the brain: Neural correlates of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations. Neuropsychologia, 46, 409–418.

Schumacher, R., Wirth, M., Perrig, W. J., Strik, W., & Koenig, T. (2009). ERP correlates of superordinate category activation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 72, 134–144.

Shafto, P., & Coley, J. D. (2003). Development of categorization and reasoning in the natural world: Novices to experts, naive similarity to ecological knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 641–649.

Shafto, P., Kemp, C., Baraff, E., Coley, J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Context-sensitive induction. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2003–2008), Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.

Shafto, P., Coley, J.D., & Baldwin, D. (2007). Effects of time pressure on context-sensitive property induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 890–895.

Shafto, P., Kemp, C., Bonawitz, E. B., Coley, J. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Inductive reasoning about causally transmitted properties. Cognition, 109, 175–192. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

Vasilyeva, N.Y., Coley, J.D., Muratore, T.M. (2009). Interaction of Taxonomic and Contextual Knowledge in Categorization of Cross-Classified Instances. Proceedings papers of 2009 Cognitive Science Conference, pp. 721–726. Vitkin, A., & Coley, J. D. (2005). Accessibility of taxonomic and script knowledge in the domain of food. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Toronto.

(2)在归纳推理活动中负相关背景关系的提取虽然不会显著影响人们的推理可能性, 但会显著降低人们的推理信心。

(3)归纳推理属性效应的心理加工机制具有跨文化的普遍性, 而表现形式则存在一定的文化特殊性, 与国外研究结果不同, 中国大学生被试在类别关系背景下对基因属性的推理可能性显著大于疾病属性, 而在生态关系背景下对两类属性的推理可能性则无显著差异。

参 考 文 献

Chen, A. T., Li, H., Yang, Y. Y., Long, C. Q., & Li, F. H. (2008). Is inductive reasoning domain free or domain specific ? —An experimental evidence. Psychological Science, 31, 567–570.

[陈安涛, 李红, 杨耘云, 龙长权, 李富洪等. (2008). 归纳推理是领域特殊还是领域一般的? 一项实验研究证据, 心

理科学, 31, 567–570.]

Chen, A. T., & Li, H. (2003). Research on the psychological effects of inductive inference. Advances in Psychological Science, 11(6), 607–615.

[陈安涛, 李红. (2003). 归纳推理心理效应的研究, 心理科

学进展, 11(6), 607–615.]

Chip, H., & Rich, G. (1995). Interaction with others increases decision confidence but not decision quality: evidence against information collection views of interactive decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 305–326

Coley, J. D., & Baraff, E. (2003). Effects of time pressure on expert and novice category-based induction. Paper to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Coley, J. D., Vitkin, A. Z., Seaton, C. E., & Yopchick, J. E. (2005). Effects of experience on relational inferences in children: The case of folk biology. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 471–475). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986) . Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.

Gelman, S. A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 65–95

Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404–409.

Heit, E., & Rubinstein, J. (1994). Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 411–422. Heit, E. (2000). Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 569–592

Jiang, K., & Xiong, Z. H. (2008). Why models of domain general inductive inference are impossible. Journal of Nanjing Normal University( Social science), 5(3), 106–112. [蒋柯, 熊哲宏. (2008). 为什么归纳推理的领域一般性模型是不可能的. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), 5(3), 106–112.]

12期 崔亚飞 等: 归纳推理属性效应中背景关系提取原则的探究

快速疾病：F(2,39)=12.78, p﹤0.001, R2=0.41 延迟基因：F(2,39)=12.06, p﹤0.001, R2=0.40 延迟疾病：F(2,39)=0.61, p=0.55, R2=0.03 推理信心：

快速基因：F(2,39)=6.08, p﹤0.01, R2=0.25 快速疾病：F(2,39)=7.46, p﹤0.01, R2=0.29 延迟基因：F(2,39)=0.21, p=0.82, R2=0.01 延迟疾病：F(2,39)=2.56, p=0.09, R2=0.12

1155

附录:

1 各实验组按键状况卡方检验显著性数据:

快速基因：χ2 (2) =51.44, p<0.001 快速疾病：χ2 (2)=48.86, p<0.001 延迟基因：χ2 (2)=47.70, p<0.001 延迟疾病：χ2(2)=53.06, p<0.001 2 各实验组回归方程显著性数据：

推理可能性：

快速基因：F(2,39)=41.21, p﹤0.001, R2=0.69

The Principle of Extracting Background Relations in

Property Effect of Inductive Reasoning

CUI Ya-Fei; LI Hong; LI Fu-Hong

(Key Laboratory of Cognitive and Personality of Ministry of Education(SWU);

Psychology School of Southwest University, Chongqing 400715 China)

Abstract

Property effect, also called interaction between properties and premise-conclusion matches, is an important psychological effect in inductive reasoning, which suggested that people could base on the background relation (relations between premise and conclusion) property most relevant to. At the same time, previous studies showed that different types of background relation vary in their relative accessibility. Therefore, the current study tries to examine which kind of background relation people would give priority to, the most accessible or the property most relevant, in inductive reasoning.

The experiment consisted of two parts: a property induction task followed by a belief- assessment task, both were conducted on the computer using E-Prime. In the induction task, 64 Chinese undergraduates were told about a novel gene or a novel disease that was true of one category of animals, they had to judge whether taxonomically, ecologically, and unrelated animals had the same property or not, under speeded or delayed conditions. Under speeded conditions the second category of animals presented 1s (delayed conditions 15s), participants were asked to judge as quickly as possible after they disappeared. After the judgment, they were asked to evaluate the confidence in their judgment. In the belief-assessment task, participants were shown each item again and asked “Do these animals live in the same habitat?” and “Do these animals belong to the same biological category?” They answered “yes” “no” or “don’t know”.

The result revealed that: (1) Property effect was independent of time pressure. The possibility of reasoning(the percent of judged “yes” in the induction task) for gene between taxonomically related animals was greater than for disease in both speeded and delayed conditions, but between ecologically related animals, there was no difference. (2) Time pressure affected the confidence of reasoning, higher in speeded conditions than in delayed conditions. (3) In the speeded conditions, both taxonomical and ecological relatedness beliefs could predict the possibility and confidence of reasoning, but in delayed conditions both beliefs couldn’t.

These results proved that people are firstly extract the background relation property most relevant to then extract those less relevant or un-relevant in inductive reasoning. Key words inductive reasoning; property effect; time pressure

博泰典藏网btdcw.com包含总结汇报、行业论文、高中教育、自然科学、经管营销、表格模板、高等教育、出国留学以及归纳推理属性效应中背景关系提取原则的探究等内容。

本文共2页12

  本文关键词：归纳推理属性效应中背景关系提取原则的探究，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。