Heuristics and biases: interactions among numeracy, ability, and reflectiveness predict normative responding

作者: Paul A. Klaczynski

DOI: 10.3389/FPSYG.2014.00665

关键词:

摘要: In Stanovich's (2009a, 2011) dual-process theory, analytic processing occurs in the algorithmic and reflective minds. Thinking dispositions, indexes of mind functioning, are believed to regulate operations at level, indexed by general cognitive ability. General limitations level impose constraints on, affect adequacy of, specific strategies abilities (e.g., numeracy). a study 216 undergraduates, hypothesis that thinking dispositions ability moderate relationship between numeracy (understanding mathematical concepts attention numerical information) normative responses on probabilistic heuristics biases problems was tested. Although all three individual difference measures predicted responses, numeracy-normative response association depended Specifically, "directly" affected responding only relatively high levels At low neither nor numeric skills related responses. Discussion focuses consistency these findings with implementation is constrained both methodological prohibit definitive conclusions, alternative explanations.

参考文章(79)
Keith E. Stanovich, Rationality and the Reflective Mind ,(2010)
William Damon, Handbook of Child Psychology ,(1997)
Jonathan St. B. T. Evans, Thinking Twice: Two minds in one brain ,(2010)
Paul A. Klaczynski, A dual-process model of adolescent development: Implications for decision making, reasoning, and identity Advances in Child Development and Behavior. ,vol. 32, pp. 73- 123 ,(2004) , 10.1016/S0065-2407(04)80005-3
Jonathan Baron, Thinking and deciding ,(1988)
Keith E. Stanovich, Richard F. West, Maggie E. Toplak, Intelligence and Rationality The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. pp. 784- 826 ,(2011) , 10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
Valerie F. Reyna, Farrell J. Lloyd, Charles J. Brainerd, Memory, Development, and Rationality: An Integrative Theory of Judgment and Decision Making Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. pp. 201- 245 ,(2003) , 10.1017/CBO9780511609978.009