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
  • [41] Causal knowledge and the development of inductive reasoning
    Bright, Aimee K.
    Feeney, Aidan
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY, 2014, 122 : 48 - 61
  • [42] CULTURE, BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS AND INDUCTIVE REASONING
    Volchik, Vyacheslav V.
    JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, 2016, 8 (04) : 28 - 39
  • [43] The Role of Causal Schemas in Inductive Reasoning
    Mayrhofer, Ralf
    Nagel, Jonas
    Waldmann, Michael R.
    COGNITION IN FLUX, 2010, : 1082 - 1087
  • [44] Relational integration predicted numerical inductive reasoning: ERP Evidence from the N400 and LNC
    Xiao, Feng
    Wang, Zhi-Dong
    Yuan, Shang-Qing
    Liang, Kun
    Chen, Qingfei
    PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2022, 59 (09)
  • [45] Who detects and why: how do individual differences in cognitive characteristics underpin different types of responses to reasoning tasks?
    Erceg, Nikola
    Galic, Zvonimir
    Bubic, Andreja
    Jelic, Dino
    THINKING & REASONING, 2023, 29 (04) : 594 - 642
  • [46] Who resists belief-biased inferences? The role of individual differences in reasoning strategies, working memory, and attentional focus
    Pier-Luc de Chantal
    Ian R. Newman
    Valerie Thompson
    Henry Markovits
    Memory & Cognition, 2020, 48 : 655 - 671
  • [47] Who resists belief-biased inferences? The role of individual differences in reasoning strategies, working memory, and attentional focus
    de Chantal, Pier-Luc
    Newman, Ian R.
    Thompson, Valerie
    Markovits, Henry
    MEMORY & COGNITION, 2020, 48 (04) : 655 - 671
  • [48] Inductive Reasoning Differs Between Taxonomic and Thematic Contexts: Electrophysiological Evidence
    Liu, Fangfang
    Han, Jiahui
    Zhang, Lingcong
    Li, Fuhong
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 10
  • [49] The Dimensionality of Reasoning: Inductive and Deductive Inference can be Explained by a Single Process
    Hayes, Brett K.
    Stephens, Rachel G.
    Ngo, Jeremy
    Dunn, John C.
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2018, 44 (09) : 1333 - 1351
  • [50] Probabilistic models of cognition: exploring representations and inductive biases
    Griffiths, Thomas L.
    Chater, Nick
    Kemp, Charles
    Perfors, Amy
    Tenenbaum, Joshua B.
    TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2010, 14 (08) : 357 - 364