Who Is Sensitive to Selection Biases in Inductive Reasoning?

被引:2
作者
Hayes, Brett K. [1 ]
Liew, Shi Xian [1 ]
Desai, Saoirse Connor [1 ]
Navarro, Danielle J. [1 ]
Wen, Yuhang [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ New South Wales, Sch Psychol, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
inductive reasoning; selection biases; individual differences; working memory; Bayesian models; WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; COGNITIVE REFLECTION; HEURISTICS; ABILITY; MODEL; SIMILARITY; COMPONENTS; ATTENTION;
D O I
10.1037/xlm0001171
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The samples of evidence we use to make inferences in everyday and formal settings are often subject to selection biases. Two property induction experiments examined group and individual sensitivity to one type of selection bias: sampling frames - causal constraints that only allow certain types of instances to be sampled. Group data from both experiments indicated that people were sensitive to the effects of such frames, showing narrower generalization when sample instances were selected because they shared a target property (property sampling) than when instances were sampled because they belonged to a particular group (category sampling). Group generalization patterns conformed to the predictions of a Bayesian model of property induction that incorporates a selective sampling mechanism. In each experiment, however, there was considerable individual variation, with a nontrivial minority showing little sensitivity to sampling frames. Experiment 2 examined correlates of frames sensitivity. A composite measure of working memory capacity predicted individual sensitivity to sampling frames. These results have important implications for current debates about people's ability to factor sample selection mechanisms into their inferences and for the development of formal models of inductive inference.
引用
收藏
页码:284 / 300
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Transitioning Conditional Probability to Discriminative Classifier over Inductive Reasoning
    Mei, Peng
    Zhang, Fuquan
    Xu, Lin
    Leng, Hongyong
    Chen, Lei
    Liu, Guo
    2017 IEEE 8TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AWARENESS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ICAST), 2017, : 507 - 513
  • [32] LATE SCHOLASTIC ANALYSES OF INDUCTIVE REASONING
    Hanke, Miroslav
    STUDIA NEOARISTOTELICA-A JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL SCHOLASTICISM, 2020, 17 (01): : 35 - 66
  • [33] Graph-based inductive reasoning
    Boumans, Marcel
    STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2016, 59 : 1 - 10
  • [34] Culture, category salience, and inductive reasoning
    Choi, I
    Nisbett, RE
    Smith, EE
    COGNITION, 1997, 65 (01) : 15 - 32
  • [35] Inductive Reasoning Renewed: A Reply to Commentators
    Krueger, Joachim I.
    Gruening, David J.
    Heck, Patrick
    Freestone, David
    PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY, 2024, 35 (01) : 69 - 79
  • [37] Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality reconsidered
    Fogel, DB
    Chellapilla, K
    Angeline, PJ
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, 1999, 3 (02) : 142 - 146
  • [38] A PROPOSAL OF CATEGORISATION FOR ANALYSING INDUCTIVE REASONING
    Canadas, Maria C.
    Castro, Encarnacion
    PNA-REVISTA DE INVESTIGACION EN DIDACTICA DE LA MATEMATICA, 2007, 1 (02): : 67 - 78
  • [39] Construction and validation of a test for inductive reasoning
    de Koning, E
    Sijtsma, K
    Hamers, JHM
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 2003, 19 (01) : 24 - 39
  • [40] Inductive reasoning: The promise of big data
    McAbee, Samuel T.
    Landis, Ronald S.
    Burke, Maura I.
    HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2017, 27 (02) : 277 - 290