Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparison of confirmation measures.

Katya Tentori1, Vincenzo Crupi, Nicolao Bonini

  • 1CRD, DiSCoF, University of Trento, via Matteo del Ben 5, 38068 Rovereto (TN), Italy. katya.tentori@unitn.it

Cognition
|May 9, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The development of probabilistic reasoning during early childhood.

Cognition·2025
Same author

Discourse on measurement.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same author

How can we make sound replication decisions?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same author

Fostering effective hybrid human-LLM reasoning and decision making.

Frontiers in artificial intelligence·2025
Same author

Counterfactual curiosity in real decisions: The roles of outcome valence and aging.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2024
Same author

Normatively irrelevant disgust interferes with decision under uncertainty: Insights from the Iowa gambling task.

PloS one·2024

Researchers compared different ways to measure how one event affects the credibility of another. The experiment assessed which confirmation measures best describe judgment in probabilistic situations.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive psychology
  • Decision science
  • Probability theory

Background:

  • Assessing evidential support is crucial for understanding belief revision.
  • Existing measures of confirmation vary in their theoretical underpinnings.
  • A unified framework for confirmation is lacking.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To experimentally compare the adequacy of alternative confirmation measures.
  • To determine which measures best capture human judgment of evidential support.
  • To evaluate confirmation measures within a probabilistic reasoning context.

Main Methods:

  • An experiment was conducted presenting participants with probabilistic scenarios.
  • Participants judged the degree of confirmation or evidential support.

Related Experiment Videos

  • The judgments were compared against predictions from various confirmation measures.

    • Main Results:

    • Significant differences were observed in the performance of tested confirmation measures.
    • Certain measures demonstrated a closer alignment with participants' judgments than others.
    • The study provides empirical evidence on the descriptive adequacy of different confirmation concepts.

    Conclusions:

    • The findings inform the selection of appropriate measures for evidential support in cognitive modeling.
    • Results suggest that not all theoretical measures of confirmation adequately reflect human probabilistic judgment.
    • This research contributes to a better understanding of how people evaluate evidence and update beliefs.