PSYCH OpenIR  > 认知与发展心理学研究室
频率树类型和提问方式对因果强度估计模式的影响
Alternative TitleThe promotion of frequency tree type and questioning format on causal strength estimation
刘雁伶1; 陈军2; 沈友田3; 胡竹菁3
First Author刘雁伶
2018
Source Publication心理学报
Correspondent Emailhuzjing@ jxnu.edu.cn
ISSN0439-755X
Subtype期刊论文
Volume50Issue:04Pages:400-412
Contribution Rank3
Abstract

心理学研究的重要目的之一发现心理干预的途径和方法。但截至目前,有效干预人类被试因果推理过程的手段尚不丰富,干预手段的效果并不稳定。本研究采用完全随机设计开展两个实验,分别探讨频率树是否影响大学生被试在反事实提问和能力提问因果推理问题上的作答表现。结果显示:(1)在两个实验中都发现了明显的图形促进效应,大部分被试在借助提供嵌套集合关系频率树(而非隐藏嵌套集合关系频率树)辅助推理时使用PPC值估计因果强度;(2)频率树类型和提问方式共同影响被试的因果强度估计模式,提供嵌套集合关系频率树+反事实提问的组合促使最多被试使用PPC估计因果强度。结果说明:明确数据之间的嵌套集合关系能极大地提高被试使用PPC估计因果强度的概率,关注焦点集信息有助于被试明确数据间的嵌套集合关系。

Other Abstract

There are lots of evidences showing that participant’s performance on Bayesian inference, syllogistic reasoning and probability reasoning could be promoted by cumulative frequency tree. However, very few study focuses on the promotion effect of frequency tree on causal reasoning. This study carried out two experiments to investigate the effect of frequency tree on causal strength inference. The research hypotheses include: (a) Frequency tree featuring a explicit nest-sets structure (ENS) can improve the rationality of participant’s reasoning, while the frequency tree featuring a concealed nest-sets structure (CNS) can’t improve rationality of reasoning; (b) Participants estimate the causal strength of different contingencies by different modes in experimental treatment which used frequency tree featuring a CNS; and (c) There are more participants estimate the causal strength by Power–PC model in preventive contingency rather than in productive contingency. 2 (Frequency tree, level 1: featuring a ENS, level 2: featuring a CNS) × 2 (causal direction, level 1: productive, level 2: preventive) × 3 (contingency, level 1: P = 0.33 and Power – PC = 0.5; level 2: P = 0.33 and Power – PC = 0.83; level 3: P = 0.67 and Power – PC = 0.83) completely random design were used in two experiments. 469 undergraduate students participated in Experiment 1 which adopted counter–factual question, and 463 undergraduate students participated in Experiment 2 which adopted ability question. Contingency was offered by a booklet which contains 30 pages, and each page presents one sample related to the causality. Participant completed a frequency tree based on contingency, and estimated the causal strength of contingency individual. The frequency tree featuring a ENS consists of three types of information: the number of total samples, the number of samples in focus set, and the number of samples that represent effect emerge or not, while frequency tree featuring a CNS consists of the number of total samples and samples that represent effect emerge or not. The study found that (a) There are three common models of causal reasoning: p, Power–PC and P (E/C) for productive contingency (or P(-E/C) for preventive contingency), the most popular model changes with different experiment treatments; (b) 70.06 % of participants estimate causal strength by Power–PC model when they used frequency tree featuring a ENS, and only a few participants (about 21.28 %) estimate causal strength by Power–PC model when they used frequency tree featuring a CNS; (c) The type of frequency tree and the format of question have combining influence on causal strength evaluation, and the type of frequency tree have more influences on strength evaluation than the format of question; (d) Both contingency effect and causal direction effect are present from the experimental treatment which used frequency tree featuring a CNS. Experiment results significantly support research hypotheses (a), (b) and (c). These results indicate that frequency facilitating effect depends on supply nest-sets structure or not, whether in counter–factual question treatment or in ability question treatment. According to above two experiments, it is suggested that participant tends to make rational inference when they use frequency tree featuring a ENS or they were questioned by counter–factual format.

Keyword因果推理 图形促进效应 频率树 提问方式
DOI10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00400
Indexed ByCSCD
Language中文
CSCD IDCSCD:6223913
Citation statistics
Document Type期刊论文
Identifierhttp://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/27672
Collection认知与发展心理学研究室
Corresponding Author胡竹菁
Affiliation1.江西科技师范大学教育学院
2.中国科学院心理研究所
3.江西师范大学心理学院江西省心理与认知科学重点实验室
Recommended Citation
GB/T 7714
刘雁伶,陈军,沈友田,等. 频率树类型和提问方式对因果强度估计模式的影响[J]. 心理学报,2018,50(04):400-412.
APA 刘雁伶,陈军,沈友田,&胡竹菁.(2018).频率树类型和提问方式对因果强度估计模式的影响.心理学报,50(04),400-412.
MLA 刘雁伶,et al."频率树类型和提问方式对因果强度估计模式的影响".心理学报 50.04(2018):400-412.
Files in This Item:
File Name/Size DocType Version Access License
频率树类型和提问方式对因果强度估计模式的(1081KB)期刊论文出版稿限制开放CC BY-NC-SAView Application Full Text
Related Services
Recommend this item
Bookmark
Usage statistics
Export to Endnote
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[刘雁伶]'s Articles
[陈军]'s Articles
[沈友田]'s Articles
Baidu academic
Similar articles in Baidu academic
[刘雁伶]'s Articles
[陈军]'s Articles
[沈友田]'s Articles
Bing Scholar
Similar articles in Bing Scholar
[刘雁伶]'s Articles
[陈军]'s Articles
[沈友田]'s Articles
Terms of Use
No data!
Social Bookmark/Share
File name: 频率树类型和提问方式对因果强度估计模式的影响.pdf
Format: Adobe PDF
All comments (0)
No comment.
 

Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.