认知失调理论如何解释人为了合理化而自我说服？
How does cognitive dissonance theory explain self-persuasion to justify?
Festinger 提出，当行为与新信念冲突时会产生不适感，人会通过改变态度来减少紧张。经典实验里，付 1 美元（低理由）为无聊任务说谎的人，比付 20 美元的人更后来觉得任务有趣——因为低报酬无法外归因，只能改内态度。
Festinger argued that behaving against a belief creates discomfort, resolved by changing attitudes. In his study, people paid 1 dollar (weak external reason) to lie about a dull task later found it more enjoyable than those paid 20—with no external excuse, they changed their internal attitude.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Festinger (1957)
Festinger (1957)
#认知失调 #态度改变 #自我说服
邓宁-克鲁格效应揭示了能力与自我评估之间的什么关系？
What does the Dunning-Kruger effect reveal about ability and self-assessment?
该效应指能力不足者往往高估自己（缺乏元认知来识别错误），而能力强者反而可能低估自己（误以为别人也一样懂）。随着真实技能提升，自信先降后升，呈曲线关系。
The effect: low-skilled people overestimate themselves (lacking metacognition to spot errors), while highly skilled ones may underestimate (assuming others know it too). Confidence dips then rises with real competence—a curvilinear relation.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Kruger 与 Dunning (1999)
Kruger & Dunning (1999)
#邓宁-克鲁格 #元认知 #过度自信
什么是框架效应？同一个事实换种说法为何改变选择？
What is the framing effect and why does wording change choices?
框架效应指选项的客观结果相同，但用收益还是损失框架表述会系统性改变偏好（Tversky 与 Kahneman）。例如 90% 存活比 10% 死亡更易被接受，说明决策受表述而非纯粹概率支配，违背理性期望效用理论。
The framing effect: identical objective outcomes are chosen differently depending on whether framed as gains or losses. 90% survive beats 10% die though they are the same—showing choices follow wording, not pure probability, violating expected utility theory.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Tversky 与 Kahneman (1981)
Tversky & Kahneman (1981)
#框架效应 #前景理论 #决策
政治立场相反的两拨人面对同一组数据，为什么常会得出完全相反的结论？
Why do two groups with opposite political stances often draw contradictory conclusions from the very same data?
政治心理学把这归因于动机性推理：人在处理信息时会无意识地优先保护既有的身份认同与群体归属，对本方立场的反例设置更高证据门槛。功能磁共振实验显示，这类推理更多调用情绪与身份相关的回路，而不是纯粹的逻辑分析区域。这也解释了为什么摆事实常常消不掉极化，有时反而诱发逆火效应。
Political psychology traces this to motivated reasoning: when processing information, people unconsciously give priority to protecting existing identities and group loyalties, holding counter-evidence to their side to a stricter standard. Neuroimaging experiments show such reasoning recruits circuits tied to emotion and identity rather than purely analytic ones. This also explains why presenting facts often fails to dissolve polarization and sometimes backfires instead.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Kahan 等,《Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government》,Behavioural Public Policy,2017 (DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2016.2)
Kahan et al., 'Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government', Behavioural Public Policy, 2017, DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2016.2
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1017/bpp.2016.2
#动机性推理 #政治极化
什么是后见之明偏差？为什么事后我们都像预言家？
What is hindsight bias and why do we feel like predictors after the fact?
后见之明偏差指事件发生后，人们错误地觉得我早就知道会这样。记忆被事后信息重构，使过去的不确定性被低估，这会削弱从失败中真正学习的能力。
Hindsight bias is the illusion, after an event, that one knew it all along. Memory is rewritten by outcome info, underrating past uncertainty and undermining real learning from failure.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Fischhoff (1975)
Fischhoff (1975)
#后见之明 #偏差 #记忆重构
什么是锚定效应？为什么随便给个数字都会影响判断？
What is the anchoring effect and why does any number bias our judgment?
锚定效应指人在估计时过度依赖最先获得的信息（锚），即使锚与问题无关。例如先看到高价再砍价，会觉得低价很划算。锚通过启动参照点影响后续调整，且调整往往不足。
Anchoring is over-reliance on the first piece of info (the anchor) when estimating, even if irrelevant. Seeing a high price before bargaining makes a lower one feel like a deal. Anchors set reference points; adjustments from them are typically insufficient.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Tversky 与 Kahneman (1974)
Tversky & Kahneman (1974)
#锚定效应 #启发式 #判断
可得性启发式为什么会让我们高估罕见风险？
Why does the availability heuristic make us overestimate rare risks?
可得性启发式指用容易想到的例子来判断事件发生频率。飞机事故、鲨鱼袭击因媒体醒目而易回想，于是我们高估其概率，却低估日常高发风险（如车祸）。
The availability heuristic judges frequency by how easily examples come to mind. Plane crashes or shark attacks are vivid and memorable, so we overestimate their probability while underestimating everyday risks like car accidents.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Tversky 与 Kahneman (1973)
Tversky & Kahneman (1973)
#可得性启发式 #风险评估 #媒体
什么是幸存者偏差？为什么成功者的方法未必可学？
What is survivorship bias and why are successful people's methods not always replicable?
幸存者偏差指我们只看到活下来/成功的样本，而忽略了失败的沉默大多数。二战时统计返航飞机弹孔而加固未中弹处，正是因为中弹关键部位的飞机根本没回来——失败样本缺失会误导结论。
Survivorship bias means we only see successful/surviving cases and ignore the silent failures. In WWII, planes were reinforced where returning ones were unhit—because planes hit in vital spots never came back. Missing failure data misleads conclusions.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Wald 战时统计研究
Wald's wartime statistics
#幸存者偏差 #样本偏差 #统计
研究发现政治保守态度为何常常与较高的威胁敏感性相伴出现?
Why does research find political conservatism frequently accompanied by heightened threat sensitivity?
整合二十余年数十项测量的综述显示,死亡焦虑、感知到的系统不稳定与威胁觉察,同右翼权威主义及社会支配取向之间存在稳定的正相关。死亡凸显实验同样观察到,被试在思考死亡之后会短暂更偏好转统价值和严厉惩罚,提示动机性社会认知是其可能的心理机制之一。
Integrative reviews covering dozens of measures over two decades show stable positive correlations among death anxiety, perceived system instability and threat detection on the one hand, and right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on the other. Mortality-salience experiments likewise find that participants temporarily favor traditional values and harsher punishment after contemplating death, pointing to motivated social cognition as one plausible mechanism.
难度 进阶 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Jost、Glaser、Kruglanski 与 Sulloway,《Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.》,Psychological Bulletin 129(3): 339-375,2003 (DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339)
Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski & Sulloway, 'Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.', Psychological Bulletin 129(3): 339-375, 2003, DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
#政治心理学 #威胁敏感性
什么是损失厌恶？为什么丢 100 元的痛苦大于捡到 100 元的快乐？
What is loss aversion and why does losing 100 hurt more than gaining 100 feels good?
损失厌恶是前景理论的核心：同等数量的损失带来的负效用约为同等收益正效用的两倍。它解释了为何人们宁愿不亏也不愿冒险去赚，以及现状偏差。
Loss aversion (prospect theory) means losses loom about twice as large as equivalent gains. It explains why people avoid risk to prevent loss and prefer the status quo.
难度 入门 · 适合 小学高段(9-12)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Kahneman 与 Tversky,《Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk》,Econometrica,1979 (DOI: 10.2307/1914185)
Kahneman & Tversky, 'Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk', Econometrica, 1979, DOI: 10.2307/1914185
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.2307/1914185
#损失厌恶 #前景理论 #风险
什么是确认偏误？
What is confirmation bias?
确认偏误指人们倾向于寻找、解读和记住支持自己已有观点的信息，而忽略相反证据。它是人类最普遍、最顽固的认知偏差之一，会强化既有信念。
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret, and recall information that supports existing beliefs while ignoring contrary evidence. It is among the most pervasive cognitive biases and reinforces convictions.
难度 入门 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
Daniel Kahneman,《Thinking, Fast and Slow》Farrar Straus Giroux,2011;中译《思考，快与慢》中信出版社,2012
D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, FSG, 2011; Chinese ed.《思考，快与慢》CITIC, 2012
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL15992072W：Thinking, Fast and Slo
#确认偏误 #认知偏差 #决策
什么是沉没成本谬误？为什么已经亏了还要继续？
What is the sunk cost fallacy and why do we keep going after losing?
沉没成本谬误指因为已经投入时间或金钱，就继续做本该放弃的事。理性决策只看未来收益，已花掉的成本无法收回，但人会因不甘心而被过去绑住。
The sunk cost fallacy is continuing a doomed action because you have already invested. Rational choices weigh only future payoff; spent costs are unrecoverable, yet we stay stuck out of not wanting to waste it.
难度 入门 · 适合 小学低段(6-8)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
Daniel Kahneman,《Thinking, Fast and Slow》Farrar Straus Giroux,2011;中译《思考，快与慢》中信出版社,2012
D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, FSG, 2011; Chinese ed.《思考，快与慢》CITIC, 2012
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL15992072W：Thinking, Fast and Slo
#沉没成本 #决策 #理性