• 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

基于言语信息的诊断因果推理

Diagnostic causal reasoning with verbal information.

作者信息

Meder Björn, Mayrhofer Ralf

机构信息

Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany.

Department of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Gosslerstraβe 14, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.

出版信息

Cogn Psychol. 2017 Aug;96:54-84. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.05.002. Epub 2017 Jun 15.

DOI:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.05.002
PMID:28623726
Abstract

In diagnostic causal reasoning, the goal is to infer the probability of causes from one or multiple observed effects. Typically, studies investigating such tasks provide subjects with precise quantitative information regarding the strength of the relations between causes and effects or sample data from which the relevant quantities can be learned. By contrast, we sought to examine people's inferences when causal information is communicated through qualitative, rather vague verbal expressions (e.g., "X occasionally causes A"). We conducted three experiments using a sequential diagnostic inference task, where multiple pieces of evidence were obtained one after the other. Quantitative predictions of different probabilistic models were derived using the numerical equivalents of the verbal terms, taken from an unrelated study with different subjects. We present a novel Bayesian model that allows for incorporating the temporal weighting of information in sequential diagnostic reasoning, which can be used to model both primacy and recency effects. On the basis of 19,848 judgments from 292 subjects, we found a remarkably close correspondence between the diagnostic inferences made by subjects who received only verbal information and those of a matched control group to whom information was presented numerically. Whether information was conveyed through verbal terms or numerical estimates, diagnostic judgments closely resembled the posterior probabilities entailed by the causes' prior probabilities and the effects' likelihoods. We observed interindividual differences regarding the temporal weighting of evidence in sequential diagnostic reasoning. Our work provides pathways for investigating judgment and decision making with verbal information within a computational modeling framework.

摘要

在诊断因果推理中,目标是从一个或多个观察到的结果推断原因的概率。通常,研究此类任务的研究为受试者提供有关因果关系强度的精确量化信息,或提供可从中学习相关数量的样本数据。相比之下,我们试图研究当因果信息通过定性、相当模糊的语言表达(例如,“X偶尔导致A”)传达时人们的推理。我们使用顺序诊断推理任务进行了三项实验,其中一个接一个地获得多条证据。不同概率模型的定量预测是使用语言术语的数值等价物得出的,这些数值等价物取自一项针对不同受试者的无关研究。我们提出了一种新颖的贝叶斯模型,该模型允许在顺序诊断推理中纳入信息的时间加权,可用于对首因效应和近因效应进行建模。基于292名受试者的19848次判断,我们发现仅接收语言信息的受试者与以数字形式呈现信息的匹配对照组所做的诊断推理之间存在非常紧密的对应关系。无论信息是通过语言术语还是数字估计传达,诊断判断都与原因的先验概率和结果的似然性所带来的后验概率非常相似。我们观察到在顺序诊断推理中证据的时间加权存在个体差异。我们的工作为在计算建模框架内研究基于语言信息的判断和决策提供了途径。

相似文献

1
Diagnostic causal reasoning with verbal information.基于言语信息的诊断因果推理
Cogn Psychol. 2017 Aug;96:54-84. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.05.002. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
2
When does information about causal structure improve statistical reasoning?关于因果结构的信息何时能改善统计推理?
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(4):625-45. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.821709. Epub 2013 Aug 12.
3
A Context-Dependent Bayesian Account for Causal-Based Categorization.基于因果关系的范畴化的上下文相关贝叶斯解释。
Cogn Sci. 2023 Jan;47(1):e13240. doi: 10.1111/cogs.13240.
4
Asymmetries in predictive and diagnostic reasoning.预测推理和诊断推理的不对称性。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 May;140(2):168-85. doi: 10.1037/a0022100.
5
Identifying expectations about the strength of causal relationships.确定对因果关系强度的预期。
Cogn Psychol. 2015 Feb;76:1-29. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.11.001. Epub 2014 Dec 15.
6
Processing Probability Information in Nonnumerical Settings - Teachers' Bayesian and Non-bayesian Strategies During Diagnostic Judgment.非数字情境下概率信息的处理——教师在诊断判断过程中的贝叶斯和非贝叶斯策略
Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 3;11:678. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00678. eCollection 2020.
7
Asking better questions: How presentation formats influence information search.提出更好的问题:呈现形式如何影响信息搜索。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Aug;43(8):1274-1297. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000374. Epub 2017 Mar 20.
8
Sense-making under ignorance.无知状态下的意义建构。
Cogn Psychol. 2016 Sep;89:39-70. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.06.004. Epub 2016 Jul 29.
9
Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts.陪审员是直觉统计学家吗?法律背景下的贝叶斯因果推理。
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 5;11:519262. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.519262. eCollection 2020.
10
Directional verbal probabilities: inconsistencies between preferential judgments and numerical meanings.方向性言语概率:偏好判断与数字含义之间的不一致
Exp Psychol. 2006;53(3):161-70. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.53.3.161.

引用本文的文献

1
Probabilistic causal reasoning under time pressure.时间压力下的概率因果推理。
PLoS One. 2024 Apr 11;19(4):e0297011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297011. eCollection 2024.
2
The role of metacognition, type of feedback, and kind of incentives for motivation to learn.元认知的作用、反馈类型以及学习动机的激励种类。
Curr Issues Personal Psychol. 2021 Jun 28;9(4):316-327. doi: 10.5114/cipp.2021.107070. eCollection 2021.
3
Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts.陪审员是直觉统计学家吗?法律背景下的贝叶斯因果推理。
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 5;11:519262. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.519262. eCollection 2020.
4
Information stored in memory affects abductive reasoning.记忆中的信息会影响溯因推理。
Psychol Res. 2021 Nov;85(8):3119-3133. doi: 10.1007/s00426-020-01460-8. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
5
Individual differences in strategy use and performance during fault diagnosis.个体在故障诊断中策略使用和表现的差异。
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Oct 23;5(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00250-5.
6
Different or the Same? Determination of Discriminatory Power Threshold and Category Formation for Vague Linguistic Frequency Expressions.相同还是不同?模糊语言频率表达的区分能力阈值确定及类别形成
Front Psychol. 2019 Jul 3;10:1559. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01559. eCollection 2019.