ABSTRACT

The dual strategy model of reasoning suggests that people can either use a Statistical or a Counterexample strategy to process information. Previous studies on contingency learning have shown a sufficiency bias: people give more importance to events where the potential cause is present (sufficiency) rather than events where the potential cause is absent (necessity). We examine the hypothesis that strategy use predicts individual differences in use of sufficiency information in contingency judgements. Study 1 used an active learning contingency task. Results showed that Statistical reasoners were more influenced by sufficiency information than Counterexample reasoners. Study 2 used a passive learning contingency task, where sufficiency was constant and only necessity information (based on outcomes when the potential cause was absent) was varied. Results showed that only Counterexample reasoners were sensitive to necessity information. These results demonstrate that strategy use is correlated with individual differences in information processing in contingency learning.

摘要

推理的双重策略模型建议人们可以使用统计或反例处理信息的策略。先前对权变学习的研究表明存在充足性偏差：人们更加重视存在潜在原因的事件（充分性），而不是没有潜在原因的事件（必要性）。我们检查了以下假设：策略使用可预测应急判断中使用充足性信息的个体差异。研究1使用了主动学习应急任务。结果表明，统计案例推理者比自学实例推理者受充分性信息的影响更大。研究2使用了被动学习应急任务，在该任务中，充足性是恒定不变的，只有必要性信息（基于缺少潜在原因时的结果）有所变化。结果表明，只有反例推理者对必要性信息敏感。