Influence Of University Students’ Cognitive Style On Conjunctive Judgment Under Two Situations

The artificial intelligence system Alpha Go defeated the world-Go-champion grabbed headlines in the world. It caused pessimistic comments that humans will be replaced by the robot. As the thinking-researchers, what should we think about this ? On one hand, it shows humans are “Limited-Rational” when compared with the“Completely-Rational” robot; on the other hand, in which aspect can human’s thinking be superior to the robot? For example, Peng Kaiping(2016) considered that humans can predict and adjust, but the robot can’t. So it’s very important to understand the characteristics of human’s thinking and make an adjustment when it comes to the judgments and decision-makings. Humans often need to make a judgment quickly, but they can’t consider all aspects of the problem. Some previous studies have indicated that people would take the “anchor-adjust”strategy in probability judgments, making an adjustment with some important or available information(Shi zifu,2009). As is known to all, in the famous “Linda-problem”, commonly, researchers think there are Conjunction fallacies, which proves that the humans’ judgments don’t conform to the logical rules. Therefore in the research of conjunctive judgment, would the ones, especially who belong to “Experience-Intuition” cognitive style, pay much more attentions to options which refers to “Higher probability” and “More Typical”, and make more conjunction fallacies? This thesis provided empirical evidences with this kind of problems.In addition, there are few domestic researches on how cognitive style influences conjunctive judgment. They are limited to the causal situation,and ignore the category-inductive situation. This paper systematically explored how cognitive style influences conjunctive judgment in different situations. The results showed that:(1)In the causal situation, student’s cognitive style didn’t influence their conjunctive judgments significantly, and the “Rational-analysis”participants didn’t make fewer conjunction fallacies than the“Intuition-experience” ones.(2)In the causal situation, the interaction of student’s cognitive style and conjunctive option-combinations didn’t have significant effect on their conjunctive judgments; the “Rational-analysis” students made fewer conjunction fallacies than “Intuition-experience” ones in the “Low Possibility-Low Possibility” option-combination; The “Rational-analysis”students made more conjunction fallacies in the “High Possibility-High Possibility” option-combination than that of “Low Possibility-Low Possibility”.(3)In the category-inductive situation, student’s cognitive style influenced their conjunctive judgment significantly, while the “Rational-analysis”participants made fewer conjunction fallacies than the“Intuition-experience” ones.(4)In the category-inductive situation, the interaction of student’s cognitive style and conjunctive option-combinations had significant effect on their Conjunctive judgments; the “Rational-analysis” students made fewer conjunction fallacies than “Intuition-experience” ones in the“Atypical- Atypical” option-combination; the “Rational-analysis”students made more conjunction fallacies in the “Typical- Typical”option-combination than that of “Atypical-Atypical”.