Kelemen Deborah, Rosset Evelyn
Boston University, Department of Psychology, 64 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Cognition. 2009 Apr;111(1):138-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001. Epub 2009 Feb 5.
Research has found that children possess a broad bias in favor of teleological--or purpose-based--explanations of natural phenomena. The current two experiments explored whether adults implicitly possess a similar bias. In Study 1, undergraduates judged a series of statements as "good" (i.e., correct) or "bad" (i.e., incorrect) explanations for why different phenomena occur. Judgments occurred in one of three conditions: fast speeded, moderately speeded, or unspeeded. Participants in speeded conditions judged significantly more scientifically unwarranted teleological explanations as correct (e.g., "the sun radiates heat because warmth nurtures life"), but were not more error-prone on control items (e.g., unwarranted physical explanations such as "hills form because floodwater freezes"). Study 2 extended these findings by examining the relationship between different aspects of adults' "promiscuous teleology" and other variables such as scientific knowledge, religious beliefs, and inhibitory control. Implications of these findings for scientific literacy are discussed.
研究发现，儿童普遍倾向于对自然现象进行目的论——即基于目的的——解释。目前的两项实验探讨了成年人是否也隐性地存在类似的倾向。在研究1中，本科生将一系列关于不同现象为何发生的陈述判断为“好的”（即正确的）或“坏的”（即错误的）解释。判断在三种条件之一进行：快速、适中速度或无速度要求。在有速度要求的条件下，参与者将明显更多科学上无根据的目的论解释判断为正确（例如，“太阳辐射热量是因为温暖滋养生命”），但在控制项目上出错并不更多（例如，无根据的物理解释，如“山丘形成是因为洪水结冰”）。研究2通过考察成年人“过度目的论”的不同方面与科学知识、宗教信仰和抑制控制等其他变量之间的关系，扩展了这些发现。讨论了这些发现对科学素养的影响。
