Evaluations of causal and conditional hypotheses.
Evaluations of causal and conditional hypotheses.
复制标题
因果假设和条件假设的评估。
DOI：
10.1080/14640748608401610
复制
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Overton,WF
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Brien,DP;Costa,G;Overton,WF
本研究在个别例子的基础上检验了因果假设和条件假设的评价。研究对象被展示了一些描述故障的场景，并被带到专家那里。专家对治疗后的结果作出因果诊断和预测。提供了四种结局证据：(1)提供了治疗并消除了问题；（二）不进行处理，问题消除的；（三）进行了处理，问题未消除的；(4)没有提供治疗，问题没有消除。受试者被要求判断个体样本是否证明了诊断，否证了诊断，或未能检验诊断。第二种形式的问题呈现相同的场景，但需要对条件预测进行评估。第三种形式的问题没有提出因果场景；受试者在没有语境的情况下评估条件预测。使用了三个内容域：医疗、机械和任意。有三个一般结果：(1)诊断被认为比预测性条件假设更不容易检验；(2)医学问题与机械问题的判断不同；(3)缺乏有意义内容或语境的问题导致更原始的回应策略。
This study examined evaluations of causal and conditional hyptheses on the basis of individual exemplars. Subjects were presented scenes describing something that is malfunctioning and is taken to an expert. The expert makes a causal diagnosis and a prediction concerning an outcome following treatment. Four types of outcome evidence were provided: (1) treatment is provided and the problem is eliminated; (2) treatment is not provided and the problem is eliminated; (3) treatment is provided and the problem is not eliminated; and (4) treatment is not provided and the problem is not eliminated. Subjects were required to judge whether individual exemplars prove the diagnosis, disprove the diagnosis, or fail to test the diagnosis. A second form of problem presented the same scenes but required evaluation of the conditional prediction. A third form of problem did not present the causal scenes; the subject evaluated the conditional predication and no context. Three content domains were used: medical, mechanical, and arbitrary. There were three general results: (1) diagnoses were judged as less open to testing than predictive conditional hypotheses; (2) medical problems were judged differently from mechanical problems; and (3) problems lacking meaningful content or contexts led to more primitive response strategies.