当前位置: X-MOL 学术Cogn. Psychol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Simplicity and probability in causal explanation
Cognitive Psychology ( IF 3.0 ) Pub Date : 2007-11-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.006
Tania Lombrozo 1
Affiliation  

What makes some explanations better than others? This paper explores the roles of simplicity and probability in evaluating competing causal explanations. Four experiments investigate the hypothesis that simpler explanations are judged both better and more likely to be true. In all experiments, simplicity is quantified as the number of causes invoked in an explanation, with fewer causes corresponding to a simpler explanation. Experiment 1 confirms that all else being equal, both simpler and more probable explanations are preferred. Experiments 2 and 3 examine how explanations are evaluated when simplicity and probability compete. The data suggest that simpler explanations are assigned a higher prior probability, with the consequence that disproportionate probabilistic evidence is required before a complex explanation will be favored over a simpler alternative. Moreover, committing to a simple but unlikely explanation can lead to systematic overestimation of the prevalence of the cause invoked in the simple explanation. Finally, Experiment 4 finds that the preference for simpler explanations can be overcome when probability information unambiguously supports a complex explanation over a simpler alternative. Collectively, these findings suggest that simplicity is used as a basis for evaluating explanations and for assigning prior probabilities when unambiguous probability information is absent. More broadly, evaluating explanations may operate as a mechanism for generating estimates of subjective probability.

中文翻译:

因果解释的简单性和概率

是什么让某些解释比其他解释更好?本文探讨了简单性和概率在评估相互竞争的因果解释中的作用。四个实验调查了这样一种假设,即更简单的解释被判断为更好且更可能是正确的。在所有实验中,简单性被量化为解释中引用的原因数量,较少的原因对应于更简单的解释。实验 1 证实,在所有其他条件相同的情况下,更简单和更可能的解释是首选。实验 2 和 3 检验了在简单性和概率竞争时如何评估解释。数据表明,更简单的解释被赋予更高的先验概率,结果是需要不成比例的概率证据才能使复杂的解释优于更简单的替代方案。此外,承诺一个简单但不太可能的解释会导致系统地高估简单解释中引用的原因的普遍性。最后,实验 4 发现,当概率信息明确支持复杂解释而不是更简单的替代方案时,可以克服对更简单解释的偏好。总的来说,这些发现表明,当缺乏明确的概率信息时,简单性被用作评估解释和分配先验概率的基础。更广泛地说,评估解释可以作为一种生成主观概率估计的机制。承诺一个简单但不太可能的解释会导致系统地高估简单解释中引用的原因的普遍性。最后,实验 4 发现,当概率信息明确支持复杂解释而不是更简单的替代方案时,可以克服对更简单解释的偏好。总的来说,这些发现表明,当缺乏明确的概率信息时,简单性被用作评估解释和分配先验概率的基础。更广泛地说,评估解释可以作为一种生成主观概率估计的机制。承诺一个简单但不太可能的解释会导致系统地高估简单解释中引用的原因的普遍性。最后,实验 4 发现,当概率信息明确支持复杂解释而不是更简单的替代方案时,可以克服对更简单解释的偏好。总的来说,这些发现表明,当缺乏明确的概率信息时,简单性被用作评估解释和分配先验概率的基础。更广泛地说,评估解释可以作为一种生成主观概率估计的机制。实验 4 发现,当概率信息明确支持复杂解释而不是更简单的替代方案时,可以克服对更简单解释的偏好。总的来说,这些发现表明,当缺乏明确的概率信息时,简单性被用作评估解释和分配先验概率的基础。更广泛地说,评估解释可以作为一种生成主观概率估计的机制。实验 4 发现,当概率信息明确支持复杂解释而不是更简单的替代方案时,可以克服对更简单解释的偏好。总的来说,这些发现表明,当没有明确的概率信息时,简单性被用作评估解释和分配先验概率的基础。更广泛地说,评估解释可以作为一种生成主观概率估计的机制。
更新日期:2007-11-01
down
wechat
bug