Tubau Elisabet, Alonso Diego
University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Mem Cognit. 2003 Jun;31(4):596-607. doi: 10.3758/bf03196100.
In the context of conditional probabilities, a good example of the marked discrepancy between intuition and formal reasoning is the Monty Hall dilemma (MHD). We used the MHD to study the effects of practicing the game, making explicit the underlying structure, or enhancing the representation of the different possibilities, on reaching and stating the correct answer. The results of the experiments showed that accumulated experience with the MHD increased the proportion of switching responses but did not change erroneous intuitions (Experiment 1). However, when the dilemma was presented in the form of an adversary game that made the underlying structure more explicit, more participants formed complete mental representations that enabled them to reason correctly (Experiment 2). This result was observed even without any practice with the game if the participants were encouraged to represent possibilities (Experiment 3). Therefore, in this context, correct reasoning seems to depend more on the ability to consider different possibilities than on extensive practice with the game.
在条件概率的背景下,直觉与形式推理之间存在显著差异的一个典型例子是蒙提霍尔困境(MHD)。我们利用蒙提霍尔困境来研究进行该游戏、明确潜在结构或增强对不同可能性的呈现,对得出并陈述正确答案的影响。实验结果表明,对蒙提霍尔困境的累积经验增加了选择换门的回答比例,但并未改变错误直觉(实验1)。然而,当以对抗性游戏的形式呈现该困境,使潜在结构更明确时,更多参与者形成了完整的心理表征,从而能够正确推理(实验2)。如果鼓励参与者呈现各种可能性,即使没有对该游戏的任何练习,也能观察到这一结果(实验3)。因此,在这种情况下,正确推理似乎更多地取决于考虑不同可能性的能力,而非对该游戏的大量练习。