中国临床心理学杂志

时间距离和空间距离对基线比例忽略的影响

作者：张慧徐富明马红宇孔诗晓李欧

单位：1. 青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室华中师范大学心理学院暨湖北省人的发展与心理健康重点实验室武汉 430079 2. 江西师范大学心理学院南昌 330022

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2017,25(2):242-245

摘要：

目的：探讨时间距离和空间距离对基线比例忽略的影响。方法：两个实验分别采用2（时间距离：远，近）×2（基线比例：高，低），2（空间距离：远，近）×2（基线比例：高，低）的两因素被试间设计。结果：①在远时间和空间距离情境中，被试在高基线水平下的可能性判断显著高于低基线水平下的可能性判断；②在近时间和空间距离情境中，被试在两种基线水平下的可能性判断没有显著差异。结论：时间距离和空间距离较近时，更容易出现基线比例忽略现象；时间距离和空间距离较远时，个体的基线比例忽略倾向减弱。

Objective: To explore the the effects of temporal and spatial distance on base rate neglect. Methods: Study 1 carried out one experiment with 2(temporal distance: distant vs. near)×2(base rate: high vs. low) between-subject design to examine the moderate effect of temporal distance. Similarly, study 2 explored the effect of spatial distance on the baserate neglect with 2(spatial distance: distant vs. near)×2(base rate: high vs. low) between-subject design. Results: The results showed that both the temporal distance and spatial distance affected the base-rate neglect under the selection circumstances, and base-rate neglect effect was weakened along with the increased temporal distance and spatial distance, thus individuals tended to make probability judgments based on base rate. Conclusion: Our findings provide consistent evidence that different dimensions of psychological distance, namely temporal distance and spatial distance influence the relative weight according to case description information as well as base rate information in the base-rate neglect situations.

基金项目：

国家自然科学基金面上项目（71571083）资助；2016年华中师范大学优秀博士学位论文培育计划（2016YBZZ120）资助

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 Raghubir P. Is 1/10>10/100? The effect of denominator salience on perceptions of base rates of health risk. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2008, 25(4):327-334
2 Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 1973, 80(4):237
3 Lin YC, Lin CH, Raghubir P. Avoiding anxiety, being in denial or simply stroking self-esteem:Why self-positivity? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2003, 13(4):464-477
4 Ledgerwood A, Wakslak CJ, Wang MA. Differential information use for near and distant decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2010, 46(4):638-642
5 Nettelhorst SC, Brannon LA, Hill WT. Examining the impact of consumer feedback on internet product evaluation:Comparing base-rate and case history information. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013, 29(4):1290-1294
6 Whyte G, Sue-Chan C. The neglect of base rate data by human resources managers in employee selection. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 2002, 19(1):1-10
7 Gorini A, Pravettoni G. An overview on cognitive aspects implicated in medical decisions. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 2011, 22(6):547-553
8 Menke C. Does the miracle argument embody a base rate fallacy? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 2014, 45:103-108
9 Pennycook G, Fugelsang JA, Koehler DJ. Are we good at detecting conflict during reasoning? Cognition, 2012, 124(1):101-106
10 Hawkins GE, Hayes BK, Donkin C, et al. A Bayesian latentmixture model analysis shows that informative samples reduce base-rate neglect. Decision, 2015, 2(4):306-318
11 Teovanovic' P, Kne?evic' G, Stankov L. Individual differences in cognitive biases:Evidence against one-factor theory of rationality. Intelligence, 2015, 50:75-86
12 Evans JSBT. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol, 2008, 59:255-278
13 孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉. 决策与推理的双系统-启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 2007, 15(5):721-845
14 Juslin P, Karlsson L, Olsson H. Information integration in multiple cue judgment:A division of labor hypothesis. Cognition, 2008, 106(1):259-298
15 Karelaia N, Hogarth RM. Determinants of linear judgment:a meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin, 2008, 134(3):404
16 Nilsson H, Winman A, Juslin P, et al. Linda is not a bearded lady:Configural weighting and adding as the cause of exten-sion errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 2009, 138(4):517
17 Yan D, Sengupta J. The influence of base rate and case information on health-risk perceptions:A unified model of self-positivity and self-negativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 2013, 39(5):931-946
18 Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 2003, 110(3):403-421
19 Trope Y, Liberman N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 2010, 117(2):440-463
20 Freitas AL, Langsam KL, Clark S, et al. Seeing oneself in one's choices:Construal level and self-pertinence of electoral and consumer decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008, 44(4):1174-1179
21 李燕, 徐富明, 史燕伟, 刘程浩, 罗寒冰. 跨期决策中自我控制的形成机制. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2015, 23(2):231-235
22 Ohlert CR, Weißenberger BE. Beating the base-rate fallacy:an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats. Journal of Management Control, 2015, 26(1):51-80
23 Raue M, Streicher B, Lermer E, et al. How far does it feel? Construal level and decisions under risk. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2015, 4(3):256-264

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】