【摘要】：本文首先提出了Linda問題的表象-命題雙表征這一新的解釋視角。該視角認為,Linda問題基于表象表征和命題表征可以有兩種不同的解讀與表征方式;而不同的被試在Linda問題上可能分別采取了上述表征方式之一;但由于Linda問題的特殊性,大多數被試采用了表象表征;大多數被試的這一表征取向則可能是所謂謬誤判斷出現的原因。本文通過4項研究,讓被試在基于表象表征設計的轉述版本與基于命題表征設計的轉述版間選擇接近自身理解的版本;并考察了將Linda問題修改成更符合命題表征的數學化表達形式能否降低所謂謬誤水平;還考察了增加促使被試運用命題表征的排序項"Linda是全人類中的一員"能否降低所謂謬誤水平。結果顯示,在轉述版本選擇上,大多數被試選擇了基于表象表征設計的版本;而上文所指的兩個修正版Linda問題則都降低了被試的所謂謬誤水平。這些結果支持了本文所提的視角。
[Abstract]:In this paper, we first propose a new explanatory perspective of the representation of Linda problem-propositional double representation. From this perspective, Linda problem can be interpreted and represented in two different ways based on representation and propositional representation, and different subjects may adopt one of the above methods on Linda problem. However, due to the particularity of the Linda problem, most of the subjects use the representation, while the majority of the participants may be the reason of the so-called fallacy judgment. Through four studies, the participants were asked to choose a version close to their own understanding between the representation version based on representation design and the report version based on propositional representation design. And whether the Linda problem can reduce the level of fallacy by modifying it into a mathematical expression which is more in line with the propositional representation; The possibility of reducing the level of fallacy by adding "Linda as a member of all mankind", which prompted the subjects to use propositional representation, was also investigated. The results show that most of the subjects chose the version based on representation design in the selection of the reporting version, while the two modified Linda problems mentioned above reduced the level of the so-called fallacy of the subjects. These results support the perspective proposed in this paper.
【作者單位】： 安徽師范大學教育科學學院;
【基金】：教育部人文社會科學研究青年基金項目(13YJC840021)資助
【分類號】：B842.1

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前2條

1 劉立秋;陸勇;;Linda問題:“齊當別”抉擇模型的解釋[J];心理科學進展;2007年05期

2 ;[J];;年期

，

本文編號：2328831