Yang Jianyong, Hu Zhujing, Nie Dandan, Zhu Debiao
School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Apr 7;13(4):319. doi: 10.3390/bs13040319.
Empirical studies have found that although humans often rely on heuristic intuition to make stereotypical judgments during extreme base-rate tasks, they can at least detect conflicts between stereotypical and base-rate responses, which supports the dual-processing view of flawless conflict detection. The current study combines the conflict detection paradigm with moderate base-rate tasks of different scales to test the generalization and boundaries of flawless conflict detection. After controlling for possible confounding by the "storage failure" factor, the conflict detection results indicated that reasoners providing stereotypical heuristic responses to conflict problems were slower to respond, less confident in their stereotypical responses, and slower to indicate their reduced confidence than reasoners who answered no-conflict problems. Moreover, none of these differences were affected by different scales. The results suggest that stereotypical reasoners are not blind heuristic performers and that they at least realize that their heuristic responses are not entirely warranted, which supports the argument for flawless conflict detection and extends the boundaries of flawless conflict detection. We discuss the implications of these findings for views of detection, human rationality, and the boundaries of conflict detection.
实证研究发现，尽管人类在极端基础概率任务中做出刻板判断时常常依赖启发式直觉，但他们至少能够察觉到刻板反应与基础概率反应之间的冲突，这支持了完美冲突检测的双加工观点。本研究将冲突检测范式与不同规模的适度基础概率任务相结合，以测试完美冲突检测的普遍性和边界。在控制了“存储失败”因素可能造成的混淆后，冲突检测结果表明，对冲突问题给出刻板启发式反应的推理者反应较慢，对其刻板反应的信心较低，且在表明信心降低方面比回答无冲突问题的推理者更慢。此外，这些差异均不受不同规模的影响。结果表明，刻板推理者并非盲目进行启发式操作，他们至少意识到自己的启发式反应并非完全合理，这支持了完美冲突检测的观点，并扩展了完美冲突检测的边界。我们讨论了这些发现对检测观点、人类理性以及冲突检测边界的意义。
