Camerer Colin, Mobbs Dean
Computation and Neural Systems Program, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA; Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Computation and Neural Systems Program, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA; Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA; Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 370 Schermerhorn Hall, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA.
Trends Cogn Sci. 2017 Jan;21(1):46-56. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.001. Epub 2016 Dec 12.
Real behaviors are binding consequential commitments to a course of action, such as harming another person, buying an Apple watch, or fleeing from danger. Cognitive scientists are generally interested in the psychological and neural processes that cause such real behavior. However, for practical reasons, many scientific studies measure behavior using only hypothetical or imagined stimuli. Generalizing from such studies to real behavior implicitly assumes that the processes underlying the two types of behavior are similar. We review evidence of similarity and differences in hypothetical and real mental processes. In many cases, hypothetical choice tasks give an incomplete picture of brain circuitry that is active during real choice.
实际行为是对一系列行动的具有约束力的结果性承诺，比如伤害他人、购买苹果手表或逃离危险。认知科学家通常对导致此类实际行为的心理和神经过程感兴趣。然而，出于实际原因，许多科学研究仅使用假设性或想象性刺激来测量行为。从这类研究推广到实际行为隐含地假设这两种行为背后的过程是相似的。我们回顾了假设性和实际心理过程中相似性和差异性的证据。在许多情况下，假设性选择任务无法完整呈现实际选择过程中活跃的大脑神经回路。
