首页> 外文期刊>Psychological Bulletin >Biases and Fallacies, Memories and Predictions: Comment on Roy, Christenfeld, and McKenzie (2005)
【24h】

Biases and Fallacies, Memories and Predictions: Comment on Roy, Christenfeld, and McKenzie (2005)

机译:偏见和谬误,记忆和预测:评论Roy,Christenfeld和McKenzie(2005)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Comparative theory testing is a useful method for assessing the value of a new theoretical account such as the memory bias account of optimistic time predictions. However, such comparisons can be misleading when they do not carefully consider the domain limitations of the respective theories. M. M. Roy, N. J. S. Christenfeld, and C. R. M. McKenzie (2005) have contrasted the memory bias and planning fallacy accounts in their ability to explain the prevalence and degree of optimistic bias in time predictions. However, the authors argue that many of the points of distinction they draw are actually reflections of the domain limitations of the 2 theories. The authors clarify the definition and scope of the planning fallacy account and show how the apparent contradictions diminish or disappear.
机译:比较理论测试是评估新理论帐户(例如乐观时间预测的记忆偏差帐户)的价值的有用方法。但是,如果这样的比较没有仔细考虑各个理论的领域限制,则可能会产生误导。 M. M. Roy,N。J. S. Christenfeld和C. R. M. McKenzie(2005)在解释时间预测中普遍存在的乐观偏见和程度方面比较了记忆偏见和计划谬误说明。但是,作者认为,他们得出的许多区别点实际上反映了这两种理论的领域局限性。作者阐明了计划谬误说明的定义和范围,并说明了明显的矛盾是如何减少或消失的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号