• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

思维偏差个体差异的“原因”和“时间”。

The 'whys' and 'whens' of individual differences in thinking biases.

机构信息

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France.

出版信息

Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Apr;17(4):172-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001. Epub 2013 Mar 13.

DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001
PMID:23490722
Abstract

Although human thinking is often biased, some individuals are less susceptible to biases than others. These individual differences have been at the forefront of thinking research for more than a decade. We organize the literature in three key accounts (storage, monitoring, and inhibition failure) and propose that a critical but overlooked question concerns the time point at which individual variance arises: do biased and unbiased reasoners take different paths early on in the reasoning process or is the observed variance late to arise? We discuss how this focus on the 'whens' suggests that individual differences in thinking biases are less profound than traditionally assumed, in the sense that they might typically arise at a later stage of the reasoning process.

摘要

尽管人类思维常常存在偏见,但有些人比其他人更少受到偏见的影响。这些个体差异在思维研究中已经有十多年的历史了。我们将文献分为三个关键方面(存储、监测和抑制失败),并提出一个关键但被忽视的问题,即个体差异出现的时间点:有偏见和无偏见的推理者是否在推理过程的早期就走了不同的路径,还是观察到的差异出现得较晚?我们讨论了这种对“何时”的关注如何表明,思维偏见的个体差异并不像传统上假设的那样深刻,因为它们可能通常出现在推理过程的后期。

相似文献

1
The 'whys' and 'whens' of individual differences in thinking biases.思维偏差个体差异的“原因”和“时间”。
Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Apr;17(4):172-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001. Epub 2013 Mar 13.
2
Highly reflective reasoners show no signs of belief inhibition.高度反思性的推理者没有表现出信念抑制的迹象。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015 Jan;154:69-76. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.008. Epub 2014 Dec 10.
3
Belief inhibition during thinking: not always winning but at least taking part.思考过程中的信念抑制:并非总是获胜,但至少参与其中。
Cognition. 2009 Oct;113(1):45-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.009. Epub 2009 Aug 22.
4
Belief inhibition in children's reasoning: memory-based evidence.儿童推理中的信念抑制:基于记忆的证据。
J Exp Child Psychol. 2012 Jun;112(2):231-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.01.006. Epub 2012 Mar 7.
5
Individual differences in working memory capacity and resistance to belief bias in syllogistic reasoning.工作记忆容量的个体差异与三段论推理中信念偏差的抗性
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Aug;70(8):1471-1484. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1188406. Epub 2016 Jun 7.
6
The development of mental processing: efficiency, working memory, and thinking.心理加工的发展:效率、工作记忆与思维。
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2002;67(1):i-viii, 1-155; discussion 156.
7
Reasoning strategies explain individual differences in social reasoning.推理策略解释了社会推理中的个体差异。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Feb;150(2):340-353. doi: 10.1037/xge0000852. Epub 2020 Sep 7.
8
Debiasing thinking among non-WEIRD reasoners.消除非西方、工业化、富裕、民主(WEIRD)地区推理者的思维偏差。
Cognition. 2024 Feb;243:105681. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105681. Epub 2023 Dec 2.
9
The bright homunculus in our head: Individual differences in intuitive sensitivity to logical validity.我们头脑中的明亮小人:对逻辑有效性直观敏感度的个体差异。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2022 Mar;75(3):508-535. doi: 10.1177/17470218211044691. Epub 2021 Sep 8.
10
[Inhibited thinking as normal psychological phenomena].[思维抑制作为正常心理现象]
Z Exp Angew Psychol. 1991;38(4):669-84.

引用本文的文献

1
Discernibility in explanations: Designing more acceptable and meaningful machine learning models for medicine.解释中的可辨别性:为医学设计更可接受且有意义的机器学习模型。
Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 Apr 23;27:1800-1808. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.04.021. eCollection 2025.
2
Conflict detection with invalid inferences: All heuristics, no logic.无效推理的冲突检测:全是启发法,没有逻辑。
Mem Cognit. 2025 Apr 17. doi: 10.3758/s13421-025-01709-w.
3
Reasoning More Efficiently with Primary Knowledge Despite Extraneous Cognitive Load.
尽管存在额外的认知负荷,但仍能通过主要知识更有效地推理。
Evol Psychol. 2024 Apr-Jun;22(2):14747049241252694. doi: 10.1177/14747049241252694.
4
Conflict Detection in Moderate Base-Rate Tasks: A Multi-Measure Study.中等基础概率任务中的冲突检测:一项多测量研究。
Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Apr 7;13(4):319. doi: 10.3390/bs13040319.
5
Study of informal reasoning in judicial agents in sexual aggression cases.性侵犯案件中司法人员的非正式推理研究。
Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 3;13:866145. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866145. eCollection 2022.
6
Confidence guides priority between forthcoming tasks.信心指导即将到来的任务之间的优先级。
Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 15;11(1):18320. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-97884-2.
7
Do different response formats affect how test takers approach a clinical reasoning task? An experimental study on antecedents of diagnostic accuracy using a constructed response and a selected response format.不同的反应格式是否会影响考生处理临床推理任务的方式?使用构造反应和选择反应格式对诊断准确性的影响的实验研究。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2021 Oct;26(4):1339-1354. doi: 10.1007/s10459-021-10052-z. Epub 2021 May 11.
8
The Effect of Analytic Cognitive Style on Credulity.分析性认知风格对轻信的影响。
Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 15;11:584424. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584424. eCollection 2020.
9
Specific Disease Knowledge as Predictor of Susceptibility to Availability Bias in Diagnostic Reasoning: a Randomized Controlled Experiment.特定疾病知识对诊断推理中可得性偏差易感性的预测:一项随机对照实验。
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Mar;36(3):640-646. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06182-6. Epub 2020 Sep 15.
10
The Bat-and-Ball Problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process.蝙蝠与球问题:支持有意识错误过程的更有力证据。
Decision (Wash D C ). 2019 Oct;6(4):369-380. doi: 10.1037/dec0000107. Epub 2019 Mar 14.