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

Determinants of confirmation.

Katya Tentori1, Vincenzo Crupi, Daniel Osherson

  • 1Universitâ degli Studi di Trento, Rovereto, Italy. katya.tentori@unitn.it

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|December 20, 2007
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

The impact of problem domain on Bayesian inferences: A systematic investigation.

Memory & cognition·2024
Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
See all related articles

Human reasoning about evidence and hypotheses deviates from probability theory. Experiments reveal that people consider factors beyond just probabilities when assessing how evidence confirms a hypothesis.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Science
  • Epistemology
  • Decision Making

Background:

  • Epistemology traditionally models confirmation using probability theory.
  • This model assumes confirmation depends solely on probabilities of evidence and hypotheses.
  • This assumption has not been experimentally tested in human cognition.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To experimentally investigate whether human judgments of evidential confirmation adhere to purely probabilistic models.
  • To identify potential deviations in human reasoning from standard epistemological assumptions.

Main Methods:

  • Participants were presented with scenarios involving evidence and hypotheses.
  • Judgments of confirmation were collected under controlled experimental conditions.
  • Statistical analyses were used to compare human judgments against probabilistic predictions.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Human reasoners frequently violate the assumption that confirmation depends only on probabilities.
  • Factors beyond the probabilities of evidence and hypothesis influence confirmation judgments.
  • Deviations were observed in systematic patterns, suggesting cognitive biases or alternative heuristics.

Conclusions:

  • Standard probabilistic models of confirmation may not fully capture human reasoning.
  • Cognitive factors play a significant role in how individuals assess evidence and hypotheses.
  • Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these deviations in human epistemology.