Sequentially Simulated Outcomes: Kind Experience Versus Nontransparent Description
Sequentially Simulated Outcomes: Kind Experience Versus Nontransparent Description
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0023265
复制
发表时间：
2011-08-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Soyer, Emre
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hogarth, Robin M.;Soyer, Emre
最近，研究人员调查了基于描述和经验的决策差异。我们解决基于经验的概率判断何时比基于描述的判断更准确的问题。如果描述很好理解（“透明”）并且经验具有误导性（“邪恶”），那么它比经验更好。然而，如果描述不透明，有效的（“善良的”）经验会带来更准确的判断吗？我们报告了 2 个实验。第一个涉及 7 个众所周知的概率推理任务。参与者的统计复杂程度有所不同，并且通过连续模拟结果获得或没有经验来回答。第二个实验涉及在做出投资决策推断时解释回归分析的结果。在这两个实验中，即使是统计学上的新手在经历顺序模拟结果后也能实现准确的概率推断，并且许多人更喜欢这种演示格式。最后我们讨论了理论和实践意义。
Recently, researchers have investigated differences in decision making based on description and experience. We address the issue of when experience-based judgments of probability are more accurate than are those based on description. If description is well understood ("transparent") and experience is misleading ("wicked"), it is preferable to experience. However, if description is not transparent, will valid ("kind") experience lead to more accurate judgments? We report 2 experiments. The first involved 7 well-known probabilistic inference tasks. Participants differed in statistical sophistication and answered with and without experience obtained through sequentially simulated outcomes. The second experiment involved interpreting the outcomes of a regression analysis when making inferences for investment decisions. In both experiments, even the statistically naive achieved accurate probabilistic inferences after experiencing sequentially simulated outcomes, and many preferred this presentation format. We conclude by discussing theoretical and practical implications.