Oberauer Klaus, Weidenfeld Andrea, Hörnig Robin
University of Potsdam, Germany.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Feb;59(2):426-47. doi: 10.1080/17470210500151717.
We asked 149 high-school students who were pretested for their working memory capacity (WMC) to read spatial descriptions relating to five objects and to evaluate conclusions asserting an unmentioned relationship between two of the objects. Unambiguous descriptions were compatible with a single spatial arrangement, whereas ambiguous descriptions permitted two arrangements; a subset of the ambiguous descriptions still determined the relation asserted in the conclusion, whereas another subset did not. Two groups of participants received different instructions: The deduction group should accept conclusions only if they followed with logical necessity from the description, whereas the comprehension group should accept a conclusion if it agreed with their representation of the arrangement. Self-paced reading times increased on sentences that introduced an ambiguity, replicating previous findings in deductive reasoning experiments. This effect was also found in the comprehension group, casting doubt on the interpretation that people consider multiple possible arrangements online. Responses to conclusions could be modelled by a multinomial processing model with four parameters: the probability of constructing a correct mental model, the probability of detecting an ambiguity, and two guessing parameters. Participants with high and with low WMC differed mainly in the probability of successfully constructing a mental model.
我们让149名预先测试过工作记忆容量(WMC)的高中生阅读与五个物体相关的空间描述,并评估断言其中两个物体之间未提及关系的结论。明确的描述与单一空间排列相符,而模糊的描述则允许两种排列;一部分模糊描述仍能确定结论中所断言的关系,而另一部分则不能。两组参与者接受了不同的指导:推理组只有在结论从描述中逻辑必然得出时才应接受,而理解组如果结论与他们对排列的表征一致则应接受。在引入歧义的句子上,自定步速的阅读时间增加,这重复了演绎推理实验中的先前发现。在理解组中也发现了这种效应,这让人怀疑人们在在线思考时会考虑多种可能排列的这种解释。对结论的反应可以用一个具有四个参数的多项式加工模型来模拟:构建正确心理模型的概率、检测到歧义的概率以及两个猜测参数。高WMC和低WMC的参与者主要在成功构建心理模型的概率上存在差异。