Suppr超能文献

双加工研究中的理论与元理论:对评论的回应。

Theory and Metatheory in the Study of Dual Processing: Reply to Comments.

机构信息

University of Plymouth

University of Toronto.

出版信息

Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):263-71. doi: 10.1177/1745691613483774.

Abstract

In this article, we respond to the four comments on our target article. Some of the commentators suggest that we have formulated our proposals in a way that renders our account of dual-process theory untestable and less interesting than the broad theory that has been critiqued in recent literature. Our response is that there is a confusion of levels. Falsifiable predictions occur not at the level of paradigm or metatheory-where this debate is taking place-but rather in the instantiation of such a broad framework in task level models. Our proposal that many dual-processing characteristics are only correlated features does not weaken the testability of task-level dual-processing accounts. We also respond to arguments that types of processing are not qualitatively distinct and discuss specific evidence disputed by the commentators. Finally, we welcome the constructive comments of one commentator who provides strong arguments for the reality of the dual-process distinction.

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们对针对我们的目标文章的四条评论做出回应。一些评论员认为,我们的提议使得我们对双过程理论的解释变得不可检验,并且不如最近文献中批判的广泛理论那么有趣。我们的回应是存在一个层次混淆。可证伪的预测不是发生在范式或元理论层面——这个争论正在这个层面进行——而是在这样一个广泛框架在任务水平模型中的实例化。我们的提议,即许多双加工特征只是相关特征,并没有削弱任务水平双加工解释的可检验性。我们还回应了一些论点,即加工类型没有质的区别,并讨论了评论员争议的具体证据。最后,我们欢迎一位评论员的建设性意见,他为双过程区分的现实提供了强有力的论据。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验