A Revised Methodology for Research on Metamemory: Pre-judgment Recall And Monitoring (PRAM).

A revised methodology is described for research on metacognitive monitoring, especially judgments of learning (JOLs), to investigate psychological processing that previously has been only hypothetical and unobservable. During data collection a new stage of recall occurs just prior to the JOL, so that during data analysis the items can be partitioned into subcategories to measure the degree of JOL accuracy in ways that are more analytic than was previously possible. A weighted-average combinatorial rule allows the component measures of JOL accuracy to be combined into the usual overall measure of metacognitive accuracy. An example using the revised methodology offers a new explanation for the delayed-JOL effect, in which delayed JOLs are more accurate than immediate JOLs for predicting recall. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Conditionals and conditional probability.

The authors report 3 experiments in which participants were invited to judge the probability of statements of the form if p then q given frequency information about the cases pq, p?q, ?pq, and ?p?q (where ? = not). Three hypotheses were compared: (a) that people equate the probability with that of the material conditional, 1 - P(p?q); (b) that people assign the conditional probability, P(q/p); and (c) that people assign the conjunctive probability P(pq). The experimental evidence allowed rejection of the 1st hypothesis but provided some support for the 2nd and 3rd hypotheses. Individual difference analyses showed that half of the participants used conditional probability and that most of the remaining participants used conjunctive probability as the basis of their judgments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the Subjective Quality of Social Justice: The Role of Affect as Information in the Psychology of Justice Judgments.

This article argues that it is not uncommon for people forming justice judgments to lack information that is most relevant in the particular situation. In information-uncertain conditions, people may therefore construct justice judgments by relying on how they feel about the events they have encountered, and justice judgments may hence be strongly influenced by affect information. Findings show that in information-uncertain conditions, the affective states that people had been in prior and unrelated to the justice event indeed strongly influenced their justice judgments. These findings thus reveal that in situations of information uncertainty, people's judgments of justice can be very subjective, susceptible to affective states that have no logical relationship with the justice judgments they are constructing. Implications for the social psychology of justice and the literature on social cognition and affect are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Biases in Social Comparative Judgments: The Role of Nonmotivated Factors in Above-Average and Comparative-Optimism Effects.

Biases in social comparative judgments, such as those illustrated by above-average and comparative-optimism effects, are often regarded as products of motivated reasoning (e.g., self-enhancement). These effects, however, can also be produced by information-processing limitations or aspects of judgment processes that are not necessarily biased by motivational factors. In this article, the authors briefly review motivational accounts of biased comparative judgments, introduce a 3-stage model for understanding how people make comparative judgments, and then describe how various nonmotivational factors can influence the 3 stages of the comparative judgment process. Finally, the authors discuss several unresolved issues highlighted by their analysis, such as the interrelation between motivated and nonmotivated sources of bias and the influence of nonmotivated sources of bias on behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comparative Judgments as an Alternative to Ratings: Identifying the Scale Origin.

Although comparative judgment methods have a number of distinct advantages over ratings, they share one common problem: On the basis of comparative judgments, it is not possible to recover the origin of item evaluations. One item may be judged more positively than another, but this result does not allow any conclusions about whether either of the items are attractive or unattractive. This article discusses the implications of this limitation for the interpretation of individual differences in comparative judgments. It also presents 3 different methods that may allow determination of the scale origin using a nested model comparison approach. An application illustrates the proposed approach as well as the benefits of determining the scale origin in understanding value judgments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The meaning(s) of conditionals: Conditional probabilities, mental models, and personal utilities.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 29(6) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (see record 2007-16865-001). On page 684, Table 4, all correlations should have been identified as having a pp then q") as indicating a high conditional probability P(q|p). Participants estimated the probability that a given conditional is true (Experiments 1A, 1B, and 3) or judged whether a conditional was true or false (Experiments 2 and 4) given information about the frequencies of the relevant truth table cases. Judgments were strongly influenced by the ratio of pq to p?q cases, supporting the conditional probability account. In Experiments 1A, 1B, and 3, judgments were also affected by the frequency of pq cases, consistent with a version of mental model theory. Experiments 3 and 4 extended the results to thematic conditionals and showed that the pragmatic utility associated with believing a statement also affected the degree of belief in conditionals but not in logically equivalent quantified statements. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of intent and harm in judgments of prejudice and discrimination.

Four experiments examined how an actor's intent and the harm experienced by a target influence judgments of prejudice and discrimination. The presence of intent increased the likelihood that participants judged an actor as prejudiced and the actor's behavior as discriminatory. When intent was uncertain, harm influenced judgments of the behavior, which in turn influenced judgments of the actor, and participants were more cautious in their judgments about an actor than an actor's behavior. Harm also played a stronger role in targets' than observers' judgments. Understanding the role of intent and harm on perceptions of prejudice can help explain variations in targets' versus observers', and possibly targets' versus actors', judgments of discrimination and prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Incorporating If...Then...Personality Signatures in Person Perception: Beyond the Person-Situation Dichotomy.

Three studies investigated conditions in which perceivers view dispositions and situations as interactive, rather than independent, causal forces when making judgments about another's personality. Study 1 showed that perceivers associated 5 common trait terms (e.g., friendly and shy) with characteristic if...then... (if situation a, then the person does x, but if situation b, then the person does y) personality signatures. Study 2 demonstrated that perceivers used information about a target's stable if...then... signature to infer the target's motives and traits; dispositional judgments were mediated by inferences about the target's motivations. Study 3 tested whether perceivers draw on if...then... signatures when making judgments about Big Five trait dimensions. Together, the findings indicate that perceivers take account of person-situation interactions (reflected in if...then... signatures) in everyday explanations of social behavior and personality dispositions. Boundary conditions are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

多变体执行误报问题分析与解决方法综述

从安全角度出发,多变体执行（multi-variant execution,MVX）被广泛应用于网络安全防御,但多变体执行存在一个共性问题：即各路执行体向裁决器返回内容时,合路产生的误报难以解决。排除机器环境等客观因素,产生误报是因为表决器收到合路信息后开始对非一致变量作安全判断,除真实攻击造成的非一致变量外,还夹杂着正常系统运行产生的非一致变量（如内存描述符、端口号、随机数、代码及进程内的线程调用顺序）,从而造成表决器误判,影响多变体系统正常运行。如果能降低多变体执行的误报率,则可以有效地提高系统效率及防御能力。对近年来多变体执行的类型进行归类,并对多变体执行产生的误报问题及解决策略进行归纳总结,分析多变体执行产生裁决误报的原因,选择Pina算法进行同步的策略、编译器模块插桩的策略、缩小表决边界的策略,对三种方案在特定应用场景下进行实验分析,分析每个方法的功能及性能,指出各自策略的优点及缺点。最后讨论现有多变体执行现有技术未解决的难点和未来的研究方向。     

基于递阶综合评价模型的电力用户能效评估系统

针对电力用户能效评估,建立了基于递阶综合评价方法的能效评估系统,该系统将能效评估过程分解为三个层次,分别为基于G1群组判断的一级指标评估、基于熵权法的二级指标评估以及最终的综合评估,充分结合主客观评价信息,克服传统单一赋权法局限性,因而能有效地运用到电力用户能效评估的日常工作中。