Evidence affects hypothesis judgments more if accumulated gradually than if presented instantaneously
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Evidence affects hypothesis judgments more if accumulated gradually than if presented instantaneously.
In a hypothesis comparison task involving quantifiable evidence, we investigated whether judgments of relative probability were affected by gradual evidence accumulation and by making a series of revised ratings, rather than a single final one. Each trial of our task required participants to rate the probability that a focal hypothesis, rather than its alternative, was correct. We manipulated (...
متن کاملWhat if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True?
Rushton and Jensen (in press) review ten bodies of evidence to support their argument that the long-standing, worldwide Black-White average differences in cognitive ability are more plausibly explained by their “hereditarian” (50% genetic causation) theory than by “cultureonly” (0% genetic causation) theory. This commentary evaluates the relevance of their evidence, the overall strength of thei...
متن کاملEmbedding If and Only If
Compounds of indicative conditionals present some puzzling phenomena. Perhaps most striking, some nested indicative conditionals are uninterpretable. Proponents of NTV hold that indicative conditionals do not have truth values, and they use this to explain why nested indicative conditionals are sometimes uninterpretable: the embedded conditional does not provide the truth conditions needed by t...
متن کاملWHAT IF ACA holdout states expanded Medicaid ? 1 What if More States Expanded Medicaid in 2017 ?
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), states can expand Medicaid eligibility for nonelderly adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). As of May 2016, 19 states had not expanded Medicaid. Based on reported Medicaid and marketplace data, we estimate that in 2017, even without the Medicaid expansion, the major coverage provisions of the ACA will have reduced the numb...
متن کاملIf more than Analytical Modeling is Needed to Predict Real Agents' Strategic Interaction
This paper presents the research on the interdisciplinary research infrastructure for understanding human reasoning in game-theoretic terms. Strategic reasoning is considered to impact human decision making in social, economical and competitive interactions. The provided introduction explains and connects concepts from AI, game theory and psychology. First result is a concept of interdisciplina...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
سال: 2011
ISSN: 1069-9384,1531-5320
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0141-6