Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood
•Word association in linguistics and confirmation in epistemology are related notions.•The same factors underlie both inductive reasoning and linguistic knowledge.•Confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood of word co-occurrence.•The effect is stable across three different experimental s...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cognitive psychology 2014-11, Vol.74 (Nov), p.66-83 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 83 |
---|---|
container_issue | Nov |
container_start_page | 66 |
container_title | Cognitive psychology |
container_volume | 74 |
creator | Paperno, Denis Marelli, Marco Tentori, Katya Baroni, Marco |
description | •Word association in linguistics and confirmation in epistemology are related notions.•The same factors underlie both inductive reasoning and linguistic knowledge.•Confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood of word co-occurrence.•The effect is stable across three different experimental settings.
This paper draws a connection between statistical word association measures used in linguistics and confirmation measures from epistemology. Having theoretically established the connection, we replicate, in the new context of the judgments of word co-occurrence, an intriguing finding from the psychology of reasoning, namely that confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood. We show that the effect, despite being based in this case on very subtle statistical insights about thousands of words, is stable across three different experimental settings. Our theoretical and empirical results suggest that factors affecting traditional reasoning tasks are also at play when linguistic knowledge is probed, and they provide further evidence for the importance of confirmation in a new domain. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.07.001 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1738473020</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010028514000541</els_id><sourcerecordid>1564352247</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c459t-1515cc3f98a09f61fb9a7d07cfdadd28f109b60ebb73d458d881f4695d311a5a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU2L1TAUhoMozp2rf2EIiOCm9SRtPrpTLuoIA250HdJ8zKT2NjVplfn3ptw7I7iZVSA85-W850HoikBNgPD3Q23i7ZzvzV1NgbQ1iBqAPEM7Ah2rGKfNc7QrP1ABlewCXeY8AADlnL1EF5QRRhoud8gfYprXXPU6O4tdXsJRLy7j6PGfmCzWOUcT9BLihOfkbDAL7kOBMw4THlZ7e3TT8oibWEVj1pTcZBwew083hrsY7Sv0wusxu9fnd49-fP70_XBd3Xz78vXw8aYyLeuWqmzFjGl8JzV0nhPfd1pYEMZbbS2VvrTrObi-F41tmbRSEt_yjtmGEM10s0fvTrlzir_WUkcdQzZuHPXk4poVEY1sRQMUnkYZbxtGacH36M1_6BDXNJUiG8WEZFy0heInyqSYc3JezalcM90rAmqTpgb1IE1t0hQIVRSVwatz_NofnX0ce7BUgLdnQGejR5_0ZEL-x0nJGOVb0IcT58qJfweXVDZhM2FDcmZRNoandvkLUyC5Ag</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1565785674</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Paperno, Denis ; Marelli, Marco ; Tentori, Katya ; Baroni, Marco</creator><creatorcontrib>Paperno, Denis ; Marelli, Marco ; Tentori, Katya ; Baroni, Marco</creatorcontrib><description>•Word association in linguistics and confirmation in epistemology are related notions.•The same factors underlie both inductive reasoning and linguistic knowledge.•Confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood of word co-occurrence.•The effect is stable across three different experimental settings.
This paper draws a connection between statistical word association measures used in linguistics and confirmation measures from epistemology. Having theoretically established the connection, we replicate, in the new context of the judgments of word co-occurrence, an intriguing finding from the psychology of reasoning, namely that confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood. We show that the effect, despite being based in this case on very subtle statistical insights about thousands of words, is stable across three different experimental settings. Our theoretical and empirical results suggest that factors affecting traditional reasoning tasks are also at play when linguistic knowledge is probed, and they provide further evidence for the importance of confirmation in a new domain.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0285</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-5623</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.07.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25151368</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CGPSBQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Bias ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cognitive psychology ; Confirmation ; Epistemology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Judgment ; Language ; Linguistic corpora ; Linguistics ; Linguistics - methods ; Miscellaneous ; Probability ; Probability judgment ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Statistics as Topic ; Word association</subject><ispartof>Cognitive psychology, 2014-11, Vol.74 (Nov), p.66-83</ispartof><rights>2014 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Academic Press Nov 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c459t-1515cc3f98a09f61fb9a7d07cfdadd28f109b60ebb73d458d881f4695d311a5a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c459t-1515cc3f98a09f61fb9a7d07cfdadd28f109b60ebb73d458d881f4695d311a5a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028514000541$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27902,27903,30977,65308</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28855261$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25151368$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Paperno, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marelli, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tentori, Katya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baroni, Marco</creatorcontrib><title>Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood</title><title>Cognitive psychology</title><addtitle>Cogn Psychol</addtitle><description>•Word association in linguistics and confirmation in epistemology are related notions.•The same factors underlie both inductive reasoning and linguistic knowledge.•Confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood of word co-occurrence.•The effect is stable across three different experimental settings.
This paper draws a connection between statistical word association measures used in linguistics and confirmation measures from epistemology. Having theoretically established the connection, we replicate, in the new context of the judgments of word co-occurrence, an intriguing finding from the psychology of reasoning, namely that confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood. We show that the effect, despite being based in this case on very subtle statistical insights about thousands of words, is stable across three different experimental settings. Our theoretical and empirical results suggest that factors affecting traditional reasoning tasks are also at play when linguistic knowledge is probed, and they provide further evidence for the importance of confirmation in a new domain.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cognitive psychology</subject><subject>Confirmation</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Linguistic corpora</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Linguistics - methods</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Probability judgment</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><subject>Word association</subject><issn>0010-0285</issn><issn>1095-5623</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU2L1TAUhoMozp2rf2EIiOCm9SRtPrpTLuoIA250HdJ8zKT2NjVplfn3ptw7I7iZVSA85-W850HoikBNgPD3Q23i7ZzvzV1NgbQ1iBqAPEM7Ah2rGKfNc7QrP1ABlewCXeY8AADlnL1EF5QRRhoud8gfYprXXPU6O4tdXsJRLy7j6PGfmCzWOUcT9BLihOfkbDAL7kOBMw4THlZ7e3TT8oibWEVj1pTcZBwew083hrsY7Sv0wusxu9fnd49-fP70_XBd3Xz78vXw8aYyLeuWqmzFjGl8JzV0nhPfd1pYEMZbbS2VvrTrObi-F41tmbRSEt_yjtmGEM10s0fvTrlzir_WUkcdQzZuHPXk4poVEY1sRQMUnkYZbxtGacH36M1_6BDXNJUiG8WEZFy0heInyqSYc3JezalcM90rAmqTpgb1IE1t0hQIVRSVwatz_NofnX0ce7BUgLdnQGejR5_0ZEL-x0nJGOVb0IcT58qJfweXVDZhM2FDcmZRNoandvkLUyC5Ag</recordid><startdate>20141101</startdate><enddate>20141101</enddate><creator>Paperno, Denis</creator><creator>Marelli, Marco</creator><creator>Tentori, Katya</creator><creator>Baroni, Marco</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Academic Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141101</creationdate><title>Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood</title><author>Paperno, Denis ; Marelli, Marco ; Tentori, Katya ; Baroni, Marco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c459t-1515cc3f98a09f61fb9a7d07cfdadd28f109b60ebb73d458d881f4695d311a5a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cognitive psychology</topic><topic>Confirmation</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Linguistic corpora</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Linguistics - methods</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Probability judgment</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><topic>Word association</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Paperno, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marelli, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tentori, Katya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baroni, Marco</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Cognitive psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Paperno, Denis</au><au>Marelli, Marco</au><au>Tentori, Katya</au><au>Baroni, Marco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood</atitle><jtitle>Cognitive psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Cogn Psychol</addtitle><date>2014-11-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>Nov</issue><spage>66</spage><epage>83</epage><pages>66-83</pages><issn>0010-0285</issn><eissn>1095-5623</eissn><coden>CGPSBQ</coden><abstract>•Word association in linguistics and confirmation in epistemology are related notions.•The same factors underlie both inductive reasoning and linguistic knowledge.•Confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood of word co-occurrence.•The effect is stable across three different experimental settings.
This paper draws a connection between statistical word association measures used in linguistics and confirmation measures from epistemology. Having theoretically established the connection, we replicate, in the new context of the judgments of word co-occurrence, an intriguing finding from the psychology of reasoning, namely that confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood. We show that the effect, despite being based in this case on very subtle statistical insights about thousands of words, is stable across three different experimental settings. Our theoretical and empirical results suggest that factors affecting traditional reasoning tasks are also at play when linguistic knowledge is probed, and they provide further evidence for the importance of confirmation in a new domain.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25151368</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.07.001</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-0285 |
ispartof | Cognitive psychology, 2014-11, Vol.74 (Nov), p.66-83 |
issn | 0010-0285 1095-5623 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1738473020 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Algorithms Bias Biological and medical sciences Cognitive psychology Confirmation Epistemology Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Humans Judgment Language Linguistic corpora Linguistics Linguistics - methods Miscellaneous Probability Probability judgment Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Statistics as Topic Word association |
title | Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T10%3A01%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Corpus-based%20estimates%20of%20word%20association%20predict%20biases%20in%20judgment%20of%20word%20co-occurrence%20likelihood&rft.jtitle=Cognitive%20psychology&rft.au=Paperno,%20Denis&rft.date=2014-11-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=Nov&rft.spage=66&rft.epage=83&rft.pages=66-83&rft.issn=0010-0285&rft.eissn=1095-5623&rft.coden=CGPSBQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.07.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1564352247%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1565785674&rft_id=info:pmid/25151368&rft_els_id=S0010028514000541&rfr_iscdi=true |