Question 3We described the Good Samaritan experiment by Darley and Batson, the line length "social conformity" study by Solomon Asch, the electric shock "Perils of Obedience" study by Stanley Milgram, and the "Bystander Intervention" experiment by Latane and Darley. What do all of these experiments have in common?
A. They are all landmark demonstrations of the importance of situational influences on our inferences and decisions.
B. They all demonstrate that personality explanations are absolutely useless in predicting people's behaviour.
C. They are all clear demonstrations that humans are inherently unpredictable.
D. They demonstrate that people tend to attribute behavior in terms of personality or character traits.
E. They demonstrate that people are prone to making mistakes and have to rely on simplified models and heuristics in order to make sense of the world.
查看答案
Question 2Imagine someone said that Milgram's obedience experiments showed that people are slaves to authority. What specific name would Ross and Nisbett give to this type of interpretation?
A Channel Factor
B. The Fundamental Attribution Error
C. False Consensus
D. Cognitive Dissonance
E. The Fundamental Cognitive Error
Question 10John has been a smoker for 20 years and does not believe that smoking is bad for him. He often says “My grandfather smoked all his life and died when he was 92”. What sort of cognitive bias is this an example of?
A. False consensus
B. Availability bias
Confirmation bias
D. Anti-establishment bias
E. Anchoring bias
Question 9To illustrate the false consensus effect, we presented some results from the "About You" survey in Think101. What did we find?
A. People who indicated that they have had something strange happen to them that science can't explain tended to think that the majority of their fellow thinkers would indicate that nothing strange has happened to them that science can't explain; and vice versa: people who indicated that nothing strange has happened to them that science can't explain tended to think that the majority of their fellow thinkers have had something strange happen to them that science can't explain.
B. People tended to believe that there are two sides to the story and that the truth must be somewhere in the middle.
C. People generally presumed nefarious intent behind the official position of the government or the pharmaceutical industry or scientists.
D. People who indicated that they have had something strange happen to them that science can't explain tended to estimate that the majority of their fellow thinkers would agree with them; and vice versa: people who indicated that nothing strange has happened to them that science can't explain estimated that the majority of their fellow thinkers would agree with them.
E. People rated themselves as better than their fellow thinkers in terms of their performance.
Question 8In our discussion of "evidence-based evidence," when are we most vulnerable to being swayed to see, hear, or remember something that didn't happen?
A. When you are an expert in a particular domain.
B. When you are "blind" to the information you're examining.
C. When we are presented with high quality information.
D. When someone's livelihood is at stake.
E. When the information is noisy or ambiguous.
微信支付 
支付宝支付