Cross-National Differences in Probability Judgment

概率判断的跨国差异

• 批准号: 9110649
• 负责人: J. Frank Yates
• 金额: $ 7.94万
• 依托单位: Regents of the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 1991
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1991-09-01 至 1992-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9110649&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Cross; National; Differences; Probability; Judgment

There are large reliable differences in probability judgments made by individuals in Western countries like the United States and those in numerous Asian countries. Most differences pertain to calibration. (Good calibration exists, for example, if about 40% of the events that are assigned probability judgements of 40% actually happen.) However, differences in discrimination have been documented too. (Discrimination is the ability of judgements to sharply distinguish instances when a target event will occur from those when it will not.) Several potential explanations of the observed differences are to be tested in experiments with subject groups in the United States and a number of Asian locations. One hypothesis is that the effects are limited to judges' directly reported assessments, which are not their opinions. Another claims that the differences are restricted to a narrow class of events. A third explanation says that they reflect societal differences in the relative importance of various aspects of judgment quality. The hypothesis of primary interest asserts that the effects rest on cognitive processing habits rooted in different educational practices. The proposed studies promise insights about universal judgment mechanisms as well as mechanisms peculiar to given cultures. They should provide guidance about problems in cross- national communication and cooperation and the transferability of decision technologies.

概率判断存在较大的可靠性差异 由美国等西方国家的个人制造， 以及许多亚洲国家。大多数差异涉及 校准。 (Good校准存在，例如，如果 40%的事件被分配概率判断为40% 实际发生）。 然而，歧视方面的差异 也记录下来。 （歧视是判断的能力， 明确区分目标事件将发生的情况， 当他们不愿意的时候（） 几种可能的解释 观察到的差异将在实验中进行测试， 在美国和一些亚洲地区的团体。 一 一种假设是，影响仅限于法官的直接 报告的评估，这不是他们的意见。 另一个权利要求 这些差异仅限于一小类事件。 第三种解释说，它们反映了社会差异， 判断质量各方面的相对重要性。 主要利益假说认为， 基于不同教育背景的认知加工习惯 实践 拟议中的研究承诺了解普遍的 判断机制以及特定的机制 cultures. 他们应该提供指导问题，在交叉- 国家信息通报与合作以及 决策技术