心理科学进展 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (7): 1209-1220.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01209 cstr: 32111.14.2024.01209
• 研究方法 • 上一篇
曹呈旭, 七十三(), 金童林, 曾小叶, 安叶青, 卜塔娜
收稿日期:
2023-09-15
出版日期:
2024-06-15
发布日期:
2024-05-09
通讯作者:
七十三, E-mail: Qshisan@126.com基金资助:
CAO Chengxu, QI Shisan(), JIN Tonglin, ZENG Xiaoye, AN Yeqing, BU Tana
Received:
2023-09-15
Online:
2024-06-15
Published:
2024-05-09
摘要:
在错误信息鉴别的研究领域, 系统2动机性推理理论和经典推理理论分别从不同视角探讨了影响个体错误信息鉴别的因素, 但两者在认知能力的作用解释上存在分歧。在现有研究基础之上, 引入情绪、信息特征和个体立场及其深层次动机等因素, 进一步完善基于信号检测论的错误信息鉴别层级模型, 旨在深化对不同因素如何影响错误信息鉴别的理解。该模型通过区分不同因素对信息鉴别中辨别敏感性和判断标准的影响, 不仅有效地调和了系统2动机性推理理论和经典推理理论在认知能力作用观点上的分歧, 也为理解错误信息鉴别的复杂机制提供了更为细致和结构化的分析框架。
中图分类号:
曹呈旭, 七十三, 金童林, 曾小叶, 安叶青, 卜塔娜. (2024). 基于信号检测论的错误信息鉴别层级模型. 心理科学进展 , 32(7), 1209-1220.
CAO Chengxu, QI Shisan, JIN Tonglin, ZENG Xiaoye, AN Yeqing, BU Tana. (2024). Hierarchy model of misinformation identification based on signal detection theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(7), 1209-1220.
[1] |
冯雪, 彭凯平. (2015). 技能和风格: 理性思维的两种测量途径. 心理科学进展, 23(9), 1550-1559.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01550 |
[2] | 李艳红, 刘佳诺. (2022). 人们为什么相信假新闻:对“假新闻信念”的认知心理学解释. 新闻界, 8, 14-26. |
[3] | 刘雅辉, 靳小龙, 沈华伟, 鲍鹏, 程学旗. (2018). 社交媒体中的谣言识别研究综述. 计算机学报, 41(7), 1536-1558. |
[4] |
彭知辉. (2022). 论中国语境下Disinformation概念的对接、转换与重新阐释. 情报理论与实践, 45(1), 1-10.
doi: 10.16353/j.cnki.1000-7490.2022.01.001 |
[5] |
汪新建, 张慧娟, 武迪, 吕小康. (2017). 文化对个体风险感知的影响: 文化认知理论的解释. 心理科学进展, 25(8), 1251-1260.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01251 |
[6] | 吴诗苑, 董庆兴, 宋志君, 张斌. (2022). 社交媒体中错误信息的检测方法研究述评. 情报学报, 41(6), 651-661. |
[7] | 朱月龙, 张开华, 段锦云. (2017). 建议采纳的情绪机制. 心理科学进展, 25(9), 1607-1613. |
[8] |
Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90-109. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
pmid: 27816844 |
[9] | Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019). The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective dual process model of moral cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(10), 1782-1801. doi: 10.1037/xge0000533 |
[10] | Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1608-1613. doi: 10.1037/xge0000729 |
[11] | Bago, B., Rosenzweig, L. R., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Emotion may predict susceptibility to fake news but emotion regulation does not seem to help. Cognition and Emotion, 36(6), 1166-1180. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2022.2090318 |
[12] | Baron, J. (2017). Comment on Kahan and Corbin: Can polarization increase with actively open-minded thinking? Research & Politics, 4(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1177/2053168016688122 |
[13] | Batailler, C., Brannon, S. M., Teas, P. E., & Gawronski, B. (2022). A signal detection approach to understanding the identification of fake news. Perspectives On Psychological Science, 17(1), 78-98. doi: 10.1177/1745691620986135 |
[14] |
Brashier, N. M., & Marsh, E. J. (2020). Judging truth. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 499-515. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
pmid: 31514579 |
[15] | Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005 |
[16] |
Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685
pmid: 26172965 |
[17] | Gawronski, B., Ng, N. L., & Luke, D. M. (2023). Truth sensitivity and partisan bias in responses to misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(8), 2205-2236. doi: 10.1037/xge0001381 |
[18] | Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (Eds). (1966). (2017). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wileys, |
[19] |
Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2017). Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist, 72(5), 459-473. doi: 10.1037/a0040437
pmid: 28726454 |
[20] | Ismagilova, E., Slade, E., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101736. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005 |
[21] | Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407-424. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500005271 |
[22] | Kahan, D. M. (2017). ‘Ordinary science intelligence’: A science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. Journal of Risk Research, 20(8), 995-1016. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067 |
[23] |
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Monahan, J., Callahan, L., & Peters, E. (2010). Cultural cognition and public policy: The case of outpatient commitment laws. Law and Human Behavior, 34(2), 118-140. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9174-4
pmid: 19169799 |
[24] | Kahan, D. M., & Corbin, J. C. (2016). A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization. Research & Politics, 3(4), 1-5. doi: 10.1177/2053168016676705 |
[25] | Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54-86. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2016.2 |
[26] | Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732-735. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1547 |
[27] |
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
pmid: 2270237 |
[28] |
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
pmid: 25251484 |
[29] | Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “Post-Truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353-369. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 |
[30] |
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. doi: 10.1177/1529100612451018
pmid: 26173286 |
[31] | Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 217-222. doi: 10.1177/0963721416654436 |
[32] | Li, Y., Fan, Z., Yuan, X., & Zhang, X. (2022). Recognizing fake information through a developed feature scheme: A user study of health misinformation on social media in China. Information Processing & Management, 59(1), Article 102769. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102769 |
[33] | Lynn, S. K., & Barrett, L. F. (2014). “Utilizing” signal detection theory. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1663-1673. doi: 10.1177/0956797614541991 |
[34] | Martel, C., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, Article 47. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3 |
[35] | Mirhoseini, M., Early, S., El Shamy, N., & Hassanein, K. (2023). Actively open-minded thinking is key to combating fake news: A multimethod study. Information & Management, 60(3), 103761. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2023.103761 |
[36] | Pehlivanoglu, D., Lighthall, N. R., Lin, T., Chi, K. J., Polk, R., Perez, E., … Ebner, N. C. (2022). Aging in an “infodemic”: The role of analytical reasoning, affect, and news consumption frequency on news veracity detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(3), 468-485. doi: 10.1037/xap0000426 |
[37] | Pennycook, G., Bear, A., & Collins, E. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944-4957. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478 |
[38] | Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865-1880. doi: 10.1037/xge0000465 |
[39] |
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39-50. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
pmid: 29935897 |
[40] |
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185-200. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12476
pmid: 30929263 |
[41] |
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388-402. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
pmid: 33736957 |
[42] | Pham, M. (2006). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 155-178. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.155 |
[43] | Pilditch, T. D., Madsen, J. K., & Custers, R. (2020). False prophets and Cassandra's curse: The role of credibility in belief updating. Acta Psychologica, 202, 102956. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102956 |
[44] | Qiu, X. Y., Oliveira, D., Shirazi, A. S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2017). Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(8), 1-7. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0507-0 |
[45] |
Rathje, S., Roozenbeek, J., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2023). Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(6), 892-903. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01540-w
pmid: 36879042 |
[46] | Saltor, J., Barberia, I., & Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J. (2023). Thinking disposition, thinking style, and susceptibility to causal illusion predict fake news discriminability. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37(2), 360-368. doi: 10.1002/acp.4008 |
[47] | Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3-4), 296-303. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_20 |
[48] | Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006 |
[49] | Stanovich, K. E. (2016). The comprehensive assessment of rational thinking. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1125787 |
[50] | Swire, B., Ecker, U. K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43( 12), 1948-1961. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000422 |
[51] | Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 215-244. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.869763 |
[52] | Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99-113. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500007622 |
[53] | Trivedi, N., Krakow, M., Hyatt Hawkins, K., Peterson, E. B., & Chou, W. S. (2020). “Well, the message is from the institute of something”: Exploring source trust of cancer- related messages on simulated facebook posts. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 12. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00012 |
[54] | Trivedi, N., Lowry, M., Gaysynsky, A., & Chou, W. S. (2022). Factors associated with cancer message believability: A mixed methods study on simulated facebook posts. Journal of Cancer Education, 37(6), 1870-1878. doi: 10.1007/s13187-021-02054-7 |
[55] | Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293-315. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293 |
[56] |
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213-224. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
pmid: 29475636 |
[57] |
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. doi: 10.1126/science.aap9559
pmid: 29590045 |
[58] | Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health- related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240, 112552. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 |
[59] | Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. |
[60] | Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12164 |
[61] | Zheng, X., Wu, S., & Nie, D. (2021). Online health misinformation and corrective messages in China: A comparison of message features. Communication Studies, 72, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2021.1917437 |
[1] | 吕小康, 刘欣, 杨婷婷, 付春野. 健康谣言的干预策略:基于信息生命周期的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2024, 32(4): 664-676. |
[2] | 何宁, 李梦, 康彬, 王梦云, 岳云帆. 测试的两面性:中期测试对错误信息效应的影响及其作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(9): 1626-1641. |
[3] | 靳宇倡, 邓成龙, 吴平, 林茜, 郑佩璇, 安俊秀. Emoji图像符号的社交功能及应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(5): 1062-1077. |
[4] | 孙岩, 房林, 王亭予, 崔丽. 自闭症谱系障碍者抑制控制的影响因素及神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(8): 1450-1464. |
[5] | 孟珠, 闫国利. 阅读任务中无关言语效应的作用机制: 干扰基于内容还是过程?[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(2): 262-269. |
[6] | 衡书鹏, 周宗奎, 孙丽君. 视频游戏中的化身认同[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(9): 1565-1578. |
[7] | 戴月娥;温芳芳;佐斌;吴漾;代涛涛. 基于个体的退休心理模型[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(3): 443-451. |
[8] | 陈斌斌, 赵语, 韩雯, 王逸辰, 吴嘉雯, 岳新宇, 吴英挺. 手足之情:同胞关系的类型、影响因素及对儿童发展的作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(12): 2168-2178. |
[9] | 李海东; 段锦云;曾恺. 主管忠诚:概念内涵、影响因素与结果[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(1): 133-144. |
[10] | 孙露莹;陈琳; 段锦云. 决策过程中的建议采纳:策略、影响及未来展望[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(1): 169-179. |
[11] | 王琦;胡金生;李骋诗;李松泽. 孤独症谱系障碍者的情绪韵律识别[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(9): 1377-1390. |
[12] | 彭芸爽;王雪;吴嵩;金盛华;孙荣芳. 生命史理论概述及其与社会心理学的结合——以道德行为为例[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(3): 464-474. |
[13] | 张剑心;汤旦;查德华;黄建平;刘电芝. 内隐序列学习意识的具身机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(2): 203-216. |
[14] | 殷明;张剑心; 史爱芹;刘电芝. 微表情的特征、识别、训练和影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(11): 1723-1736. |
[15] | 吕振勇;郑盼盼;Todd Jackson. 暴食症的影响因素及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(1): 55-65. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||