Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023 Dec;76(12):2704-2717. doi: 10.1177/17470218231155897. Epub 2023 Feb 24.
The dual strategy model suggests that people can use either a Statistical or a Counterexample reasoning strategy, which reflects two qualitatively different ways of processing information. This model has been shown to capture individual differences in a wide array of tasks, such as contingency learning. Here, we examined whether this extends to individual differences in the interpretation of contingency information where effects are ambiguous. Previous studies, using perceptually complex stimuli, have shown that the way in which participants interpret ambiguous effects predicts causal judgements. In two studies, we attempted to replicate this effect using a small number of clearly identifiable cues. Results show that the interpretation of ambiguous effects as effect present is related to final contingency judgements. In addition, results showed that Statistical reasoners had a stronger tendency to interpret ambiguous effects as effect present than Counterexample reasoners, which mediates the difference in contingency judgements.
双重策略模型表明，人们可以使用统计推理策略或反例推理策略，这反映了两种截然不同的信息处理方式。该模型已被证明可以捕捉到各种任务中的个体差异，例如条件学习。在这里，我们研究了这种差异是否扩展到了对因果关系信息的解释中的个体差异，因为在这种情况下，效应是模棱两可的。之前的研究使用了知觉复杂的刺激，表明参与者解释模棱两可的效应的方式可以预测因果判断。在两项研究中，我们试图使用少量可明确识别的线索来复制这种效应。结果表明，将模棱两可的效应解释为存在效应与最终的条件判断有关。此外，结果表明，统计推理者比反例推理者更倾向于将模棱两可的效应解释为存在效应，这也解释了条件判断上的差异。
