【作者】 曾晓青；

【导师】 胡竹菁；

【作者基本信息】 江西师范大学 ， 基础心理学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 华生选择任务（也称四卡任务）中的“内容效应”自发现以来，引起了研究者的广泛兴趣，但许多研究结果并不一致，有时甚至相互矛盾。为了解释“内容效应”这一现象，先后涌现出诸多理论观点或模型，但这些理论似乎总存在着某些不足。Cosmides&Tooby从进化论角度，以一个全新的视角对四卡任务中的“内容效应”进行了分析并认为，许多理论之所以对“内容效应”解释失败，是由于这些理论的基础假设——同一认知加工过程控制着不同领域的推理是错误的。基于进化心理学角度提出的社会契约理论认为，人类心理是人类所遇到的最复杂的自然现象，是进化过程的产物，包含了专门针对社会交换的特定推理机制。社会交换在人类进化过程中是一个至关重要的领域，我们所拥有社会契约运算法则操纵着成本－收益表征，因为成本-收益表征在社会交换中是能够被理解的最高水平的抽象过程。为了便于对社会交换进行推理，人们非常擅于侦查欺骗的程序是直接编入到我们的达尔文主义的运算法则中去，社会契约理论不仅对数据提供了最节俭的解释，而且从进化理论来看，其假定某些天生的运算法则是目的特定性和内容依赖性也是极其节俭的，社会契约理论被认为是至今对“内容效应”更为有效的解释之一，是在实验水平上能解释内容效应的唯一候选理论。尽管该理论得到了一系列实验证据的支持，但也遭受了不少批评，并且还存在许多有待解决的问题：如标准社会契约规则与转换社会契约规则是否存在差异、人们为什么会在成本-收益结构社会交换条件推理上选择利他主义卡片，更为重要的是，人们对成本-收益结构条件推理是否仅仅能用社会契约理论加以解释，或者说仅仅是领域特定进化的结果等。国内外对此研究相对较少，因此加强对该领域的研究对于揭示人们的推理、乃至决策的认知规律具有重要的理论和实践意义。本研究主要进行了五个研究七个实验，分别考察了：1）指导语对成本-收益结构条件推理的影响；2）专家与新手在成本-收益结构条件推理上的差异；3）标准与转换社会契约规则的差异及其原因；4）在成本-收益结构条件推理上的利他主义选择；5）成本-收益结构条件推理的发展趋势。本研究主要获得了以下结论：1）证伪指导语更有助于改善被试在成本-收益结构内容条件推理上的作业成绩；2）专家与新手在成本-收益结构条件推理上的社会契约作答差异不显著；3）与不熟悉性的社会契约问题相比，熟悉的社会契约问题作业成绩更好；4）标准社会契约规则的作业成绩好于转换社会契约规则的作业成绩；5）被试在转换社会契约规则问题比在标准社会契约规则问题上更倾向于选择利他主义卡片组合；6）与美国被试相比，中国被试更多选择利他主义卡片组合，这可能是中外文化差异造成的结果，但同为中国被试的汉维族间差异不显著；7）从儿童期开始直到成年晚期人们的社会契约推理能力一直处于上升阶段，成年期是人生推理能力发展突飞猛进的时期；8）对标准社会契约问题而言，成年早期是人们推理能力发展的最高峰；但对转换社会契约问题来说，成年中期是人们推理能力发展的最高峰；社会规则契约问题的最佳推理成绩发生在成年早期；个人规则契约问题的最佳推理成绩出现在成年中期。这一系列实验结果表明，社会契约理论可以部分地解释成本-收益结构条件推理的结果，如被试在具有成本-收益结构内容的条件推理上普遍得好成绩。但不能解释标准社会契约规则的成绩好于转换社会契约规则、熟悉性对它的影响等问题。相反，记忆线索假设及“知识与试题双重结构模型”对此作出了一定的理论解释。同时也表明，尽管基于进化心理学而提出的社会契约理论主张领域特定性推理过程,但并没有证据来支持领域普遍性思维是一种领域特定性适应（Girotto V.Tentori K,2008)。本研究认为，综合现有的各种理论观点来看，像成本-收益结构条件推理这样的高级心理加工能力，既可以用领域特定的社会契约理论来加以解释，也可以用普遍的其它理论来加以解释，因此可以说是领域一般和领域特定的综合体。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since “content effects” had been discovered of the Wason selection task (alsoknown as the four card task)，it aroused many researchers’ wide interest. But many ofthe results are not consistent, and sometimes conflicting. In order to explain thisphenomenon of “content effects", there has emerged many theoretical or model, butthese theories seems have some deficiencies always.Cosmides&Tooby analysis the "Content effects" of the four cards task from anevolutionary point of view, then put forward a new perspective and believe that thereason of many theories can not explain the “content effects” is the basis of thesetheoretical assumptions-the same cognitive process controlled different areas ofreasoning, is wrong.The social contract theory which based on the perspective of evolutionarypsychology believe that the human mind is the most complex natural phenomenonhumans have yet encountered, that the human mind is the product of the evolutionaryprocess, and that the human mind contains algorithms (specialized mechanisms)designed for reasoning about social exchange, and social exchange is anevolutionarily crucial domain.Our social contract algorithms operate on cost-benefit representations becausethis is the highest level of abstraction at which social exchange can be understood.In order to make people easier to participate in social exchange reasoning，Procedures that make us very good at detecting cheating were directly programmedinto our Darwinian algorithms for reasoning about social exchange.Social contract theory not only provides the most parsimonious explanation ofthe data, but the assumption that some innate algorithms are special-purpose andcontent-dependent is also more parsimonious from the standpoint of evolutionarytheory. The social contract theory is considered to be far more one of the effectiveexplain theory of “content effects".On an empirical level, social contract theory is theonly candidate theory to attempt to stalk the “elusive content effect” on the selectiontask. Although this theory has been supported by a series of experiments evidence, itsuffered a lot of criticism also, and there are still many problems to be solved: Such aswhether there are differences between the standard social contract rules and the switchsocial contract rules, Why do people choose altruism cards on the cost-benefit structure of social exchange reasoning, more importantly, The cost-benefit structuralconditions reasoning can only explain by the social contract theory, or it isdomain-specific evolution results and so on, There are little research on these issuesdomestic and abroad. So it is important to strengthen the research in this field forrevealing the cognitive rule of people’s reasoning and decision-making.This research mainly conducted five research seven experiments, wereinvestigated respectively:1) The influence of instructions on conditional reasoning ofthe cost-benefit structure;2)The differences between experts and novices onconditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure;3)The difference and it’s reasonbetween the standard social contract and switched social contract rule;4) The selectionof altruistic cards on the conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure;5)Thestudy on development of conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure.The main findings of this study are as follows:1) The falsifiable instruction is helpful in improving the subjects’ performanceon conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure.2) There was no significant difference of the social contract scores between theexperts and novices on the conditional reasoning of cost-benefit structure.3) Compared with unfamiliar social contract，Participants word better on thefamiliar social contract.4) The subjects’ performance on the standard social contract rules is better thanthat of the switched social contract rule.5) Participants were more likely to choose the altruism card on the switchedsocial contract rules than that of the standard social contract rule.6) Chinese subjects chose altruistic card more than the American subjects, Thismay be the results of Chinese and foreign cultural differences, But there have nosignificant differences between the Han Nationality and Uigur nationality7) People’s reasoning ability on social contract has been on the upswing fromchildhood until late adulthood, and the adulthood is the period of the rapiddevelopment of reasoning ability throughout the life.8) As for the Standards social contract issues, Early adulthood is the highest peakof the development of people’s reasoning ability; But in terms of switched socialcontract issues, the highest peak is happened in the middle-adulthood; The bestreasoning scores of the social rules of contract problems occur in early adulthood; andit occurs in middle-adulthood of the personal rules of contract reasoning.The results of this series of experiments showed that social contract theory can partly explain the result of conditional reasoning on the cost-benefit structure. Such asthere have good results on conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure contentin generally. But it can not explain the performs of the standard social contract rulesare better than that of the switch social contract, it can not explain the influence offamiliarity on the conditional reasoning of cost-benefit and so on. On the contrary, thememory cue hypothesis and the dual structure model of item and knowledge canexplain it to some extent.It also show that although the social contract theory,which based on evolutionarypsychology advocated domain-specific reasoning process, there is no evidence tosupport the field universality thinking is a domain-specific adaptation.Therefore, thisstudy suggests that integrated the existing theoretical point of view, the conditionalreasoning of costs-benefit structure of such higher mental processing capacity can beexplained both by the domain-specific social contract theory and the otherdomain-general theory. So you can say it is a complex of the domain-general anddomain-specific.更多还原