权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Combination Rules in Information Integration

信息集成中的组合规则

基本信息

批准号：
ES/K004948/1
负责人：
Adam Sanborn
金额：
$ 34.76万
依托单位：
University of Warwick
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2013
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2013 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FK004948%2F1
关键词：
Combination Rules Information Integration

项目摘要

The decisions that people make often show peculiar biases, especially when combining information together. Let's say that you are a juror in a murder trial. The prosecution presents you with two pieces of evidence: an eyewitness who claims to have seen the defendant at the scene of the crime and an expert who matched the fingerprints on the murder weapon to the defendant. Both pieces of evidence strongly implicate the defendant, but neither is perfect. Surprisingly we've found, using a more controlled laboratory task, that the impression of the guilt of the defendant does not increase with the second piece of evidence. If a participant in the experiment thought that there was a 75% chance of guilt based on one pieces of evidence, they still believed that there was a 75% chance of guilt based on two pieces of evidence.However, we do not always combine information incorrectly -- the rule we use to combine information is malleable. An example of this comes if we reframe the murder case as a perceptual task. Instead of determining guilt or innocence, let's say we are concerned with whether someone made a "ba" or "pa" sound. And if instead of evaluating two witnesses, let's say that we are presented with a video of a mouth moving and an audio clip. This is the same problem as the murder case example, but here people combine information correctly. If the information is presented to people "cognitively", as separate pieces of text, they combine it incorrectly. If the information is presented "perceptually", as different parts of the same image, they combine it correctly.Other researchers have looked at when people combine information differently, but have used different manipulations in different tasks with different stimuli. In our pilot work, we made the murder case and sound identification task as similar as possible using the same set of stimuli and still found that people combined information very differently. Our overall goal is to develop a unified understanding of in what drives people to combine information correctly or incorrectly by exploring a variety of tasks using a common set of stimuli and manipulations.In addition to our overall goal, we have some specific aims for this research. Our first aim is to investigate why changing the presentation between the extremes of the murder trial and sound identification tasks affects how we combine information. These manipulations should tell us whether the difference is due to having a better perceptual rather than cognitive system, whether it is due to having more experience with the perceptual task, or whether people have particular assumptions about where the information comes from.Our second aim is to understand how people combine information about how risky an investment is and how much potential reward could be gained. Though investors often have to choose between investments, researchers do not know whether people combine risk and reward correctly in this task. Once we have determined what type of rule people are using, we see if the murder trial/sound identification task manipulations have the same effect here - whether people have common mechanisms for choosing combination rules in the two tasks.Although people often do not integrate information correctly, their strategy might in fact be optimal given their uncertainty about the correct integration rule. Statistically, if one is unsure of the correct rule, the best strategy to get close to the true answer is to average estimates from candidate rules. Our third aim is to test whether people are in fact behaving optimally in the face of uncertainty about integration rules.

人们所做的决定往往会显示出特殊的偏见，尤其是在将信息结合在一起时。假设你是一起谋杀案的陪审员。控方向你出示了两份证据：一份是声称在犯罪现场看到被告的目击证人，另一份是将凶器上的指纹与被告相匹配的专家。这两项证据都有力地证明了被告，但都不是完美的。令人惊讶的是，我们发现，使用一个更受控的实验室任务，被告有罪的印象并没有随着第二个证据的增加而增加。如果实验参与者认为基于一个证据有75%的可能性有罪，他们仍然相信基于两个证据有75%的可能性有罪。然而，我们并不总是错误地组合联合收割机信息-我们使用的规则联合收割机信息是可塑的。如果我们将谋杀案重新定义为一项知觉任务，就会出现这样的例子。与其说我们是在判定有罪还是无罪，不如说我们关心的是某人是发出了“ba”还是“pa”的声音。如果不是评估两名证人，而是假设我们看到一段嘴巴移动的视频和一段音频片段。这和谋杀案的例子是一样的问题，但是这里人们联合收割机正确地组合了信息。如果这些信息是作为单独的文本片段“认知地”呈现给人们的，他们就会错误地将其联合收割机组合起来。如果信息是“感知”呈现的，就像同一幅图像的不同部分一样，他们就能正确地联合收割机它。其他研究人员研究了人们联合收割机信息的不同方式，但在不同的刺激下，在不同的任务中使用了不同的操作。在我们的试点工作中，我们使用相同的刺激集，尽可能地使谋杀案和声音识别任务相似，但仍然发现人们组合信息的方式非常不同。我们的总体目标是通过使用一组共同的刺激和操作来探索各种任务，从而对是什么驱使人们正确或错误地组合联合收割机信息形成统一的理解。除了我们的总体目标外，我们还有一些具体的研究目标。我们的第一个目标是调查为什么在谋杀案审判和声音识别任务的极端之间改变呈现方式会影响我们如何组合联合收割机信息。这些操作应该告诉我们，这种差异是否是由于有一个更好的知觉系统而不是认知系统，是否是由于有更多的知觉任务经验，或者人们是否对信息的来源有特定的假设，我们的第二个目标是了解人们如何将关于投资风险和潜在回报的信息联合收割机组合起来。虽然投资者经常不得不在投资之间做出选择，但研究人员不知道人们在这项任务中是否正确地将联合收割机的风险和回报结合起来。一旦我们确定了人们使用的是哪种类型的规则，我们就可以看到谋杀审判/声音识别任务的操作是否有同样的效果--人们是否有共同的机制来选择这两个任务中的组合规则。尽管人们经常不能正确地整合信息，但考虑到他们对正确整合规则的不确定性，他们的策略实际上可能是最优的。从统计学上讲，如果不确定正确的规则，接近真实答案的最佳策略是对候选规则的估计值进行平均。我们的第三个目标是测试人们在面对整合规则的不确定性时是否真的表现最佳。