Logic của các hiệu ứng khung

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 52 - Trang 939-962 - 2023
Francesco Berto1,2, Aybüke Özgün2
1Arché, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
2ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Các hiệu ứng khung liên quan đến việc có các thái độ khác nhau đối với những nội dung hợp lý hoặc cần thiết tương đương. Khung có tầm quan trọng then chốt cho khoa học nhận thức, kinh tế học hành vi, lý thuyết quyết định, và các khoa học xã hội nói chung. Chúng tôi mô hình hóa một loại khung điển hình, dựa trên (i) sự phân biệt cấu trúc giữa những niềm tin được kích hoạt trong trí nhớ làm việc và những niềm tin không được kích hoạt trong trí nhớ dài hạn, và (ii) sự nhạy cảm với chủ đề hoặc đối tượng của niềm tin: một đặc điểm của thái độ mệnh đề đang thu hút nhiều sự chú ý trong nghiên cứu. Chúng tôi giới thiệu một lớp mô hình có các đặc điểm (i) và (ii) để đại diện và lý luận về các tác nhân mà trạng thái niềm tin của họ có thể bị ảnh hưởng bởi các hiệu ứng khung. Chúng tôi xây dựng một hệ thống tiên đề mà chúng tôi chứng minh là hợp lệ và đầy đủ liên quan đến lớp mô hình này.

Từ khóa

#hiệu ứng khung #niềm tin #trí nhớ làm việc #trí nhớ dài hạn #khoa học nhận thức #kinh tế học hành vi #lý thuyết quyết định

Tài liệu tham khảo

Anderson, J. (1983). Architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7, 85–97. Balbiani, P., Fernández-Duque, D., & Lorini, E. (2019). The dynamics of epistemic attitudes in resource-bounded agents. Studia Logica, 107, 457–488. Baltag, A., & Renne, B. (2016). Dynamic epistemic logic. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, winter 2016 edn. Barsalou, L. (1992). Cognitive psychology. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Stanford: CSLI Publications. van Benthem, J., & Velázquez-Quesada, F.R. (2010). The dynamics of awareness. Synthese, 177(1), 5–27. Berto, F. (2018). Aboutness in imagination. Philosophical Studies, 175, 1871–1886. Berto, F. (2019). Simple hyperintensional belief revision. Erkenntnis, 84, 559–575. Berto, F., & Hawke, P. (2018). Knowability relative to information. Mind, 130, 1–33. Bjorndahl, A., & Özgün, A. (2020). Logic and topology for knowledge, knowability, and belief. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 13(4), 748–775. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal logic volume 53 of cambridge tracts in theoretical computer scie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Busby, E., Flynn, D., & Druckman, J. (2018). Studying framing effects on political preferences. In P. D’ Angelo (Ed.) Doing news framing analysis, volume II, pp. 67–90. Routledge. Crowder, R. (1993). Short-term memory: where do we stand? Memory and Cognition, 21, 142–45. Dabrowski, A., Moss, L.S., & Parikh, R. (1996). Topological reasoning and the logic of knowledge. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 78(1), 73–110. Van Ditmarsch, H., Van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Dordrecht: Springer. Dretske, F. (1970). Epistemic operators. The Journal of Philosophy, 67, 1007–1023. Druckman, J. (2001a). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 96–101. Druckman, J. (2001b). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law Economics, and Organization, 17, 62–68. Elgot-Drapkin, J., Miller, M., & Perils, D. (1991). Memory, reason, and time: the step-logic approach. In R. Cummins (Ed.) Philosophy and AI: essays in the interface, pp. 79–103. MIT Press, Cambridge. Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2015). Cognitive psychology. New York: Psychology Press. Fagin, R., & Halpern, J.Y. (1987). Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 34(1), 39–76. Fine, K. (2016). Angellic content. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(2), 199–226. Gächter, S., Orzen, H., Renner, E., & Stamer, C. (2009). Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70, 443–46. Giordani, A. (2019). Axiomatizing the logic of imagination. Studia Logica, 107, 639–657. Halpern, J.Y. (2001). Alternative semantics for unawareness. Games and Economic Behavior, 37(2), 321–339. Hansson, S. (1999). A textbook of belief dynamics: theory change and database updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hawke, P. (2016). Questions, topics and restricted closure. Philosophical Studies, 73(10), 2759–2784. Hawke, P., Özgün, A., & Berto, F. (2020). The fundamental problem of logical omniscience. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 49, 727–766. Hawthorne, J. (2005). The case for closure. In E. Sosa (Ed.) New directions in semantics, pp. 26–43. Blackwell, Oxford. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Holliday, W. (2015). Fallibilism and multiple paths to knowledge. In T. Gendler J. Hawthorne (Eds.) Oxford studies in epistemology, volume 5, pp. 97–144. Oxford University Press. Humberstone, L. (2000). Parts and partitions. Theoria, 66, 41–82. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking: fast and slow. London: Penguin. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–50. Konolige, K. (1986). What awareness isn’t: a sentential view of implicit and explicit belief. In J.Y. Halpern (Ed.) Theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge, pp. 241–250. Morgan Kaufmann. Kripke, S. (2011). Nozick on knowledge. In Philosophical troubles: collected papers, volume 1. Oxford University Press. Lawlor, K. (2005). Living without closure. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 697, 25–49. Levin, I., Gaeth, G., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411–429. Lewis, D. (1988). Relevant implication. Theoria, 54(3), 161–174. Lorini, E. (2020). Rethinking epistemic logic with belief bases. Artificial Intelligence, 282, 103233. Lorini, E., & Song, P. (2022). A computationally grounded logic of awareness. Journal of Logic and Computation, Online first:https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exac035. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moss, L.S., & Parikh, R. (1992). Topological reasoning and the logic of knowledge. In Proc. of the 4th TARK, pp. 95–105. Morgan Kaufmann. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Harvard University Press. Özgün, A., & Berto, F. (2021). Dynamic hyperintensional belief revision. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 14(3), 766–811. Pacuit, E. (2017). Neighbourhood semantics for modal logic. Dordrecht: Springer. Perry, J. (1989). Possible worlds and subject matter. In The problem of the essential indexical and other essays, pp. 145–160. CSLI Publications. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rott, H. (1998). “Just because”: taking belief bases seriously. Lecture Nores in Logic, 13, 387–408. Schachter, D., & Tulving, E. (1994). Memory systems. Cambridge: MITy Press. Schipper, B. (2015). Awareness. In H. Van Ditmarsch, J. Halpern, W. Van der Hoek, & B. Kooi (Eds.) Handbook of epistemic logic, pp. 79–146. College Publications, London. Scott, D. (1970). Advice on modal logic. In K. Lambert (Ed.) Philosophical problems in logic, pp. 143–73. Reidel, Dordrecht. Sharon, A., & Spectre, L. (2017). Evidence and the openness of knowledge. Philosophical Studies, 174, 1001–1037. Squire, L. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University Press. Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press. Thaler, R. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press. Velázquez-Quesada, F.R. (2014). Dynamic epistemic logic for implicit and explicit beliefs. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 23(2), 107–140. Weiss, M.A., & Parikh, R. (2002). Completeness of certain bimodal logics for subset spaces. Studia Logica, 71(1), 1–30. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Yalcin, S. (2018). Belief as question-sensitive. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(1), 23–47.