The effect of experimentally contrived experience on reasoning performance

Pollard, Paul; Evans, Jonathan St. B. T.

doi:10.1007/bf00308708

Cited by 35 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as Chater and Oaksford (1999a) discuss, these studies did not vary believability directly but only indirectly either by using materials protested by other participants (Pollard & Evans, 1981) or by manipulating the possibility of exceptions rather than believability itself (Fiedler & Hertel, 1994;Love & Kessler, 1995;Pollard & Evans, 1983). 5 Moreover, none of these studies explicitly obtained measures of participants' degree of belief in the rules they tested in the selection task.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…A number of studies have also varied believability (Fiedler & Hertel, 1994;Love & Kessler, 1995;Pollard & Evans, 1983) and appear to show results consistent with Evans and Over (1996a) and Klauer (1999). However, as Chater and Oaksford (1999a) discuss, these studies did not vary believability directly but only indirectly either by using materials protested by other participants (Pollard & Evans, 1981) or by manipulating the possibility of exceptions rather than believability itself (Fiedler & Hertel, 1994;Love & Kessler, 1995;Pollard & Evans, 1983).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Probabilistic Effects in Data Selection

Oaksford

Chater²,

Grainger³

1999

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Probabilistic Effects in Data Selection

Oaksford

Chater²,

Grainger³

1999

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Evans and Over (1996b) argued that the original dependence model was also incapable of explaining data from Kirby (1994) or from Pollard and Evans (1983). Oaksford and Chater (1998b) argued that this was because the original dependence model did not allow exceptions.…”

Section: Exceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal data selection: Revision, review, and reevaluation

Oaksford

Chater

2003

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since it first appeared, there has been much research and critical discussion on the theory of optimal data selection as an explanation of Wason's (1966Wason's ( , 1968 selection task (Oaksford & Chater, 1994). In this paper, this literature is reviewed, and the theory of optimal data selection is reevaluated in its light. The information gain model is first located in the current theoretical debate in the psychology of reasoning concerning dual processes in human reasoning. A model comparison exercise is then presented that compares a revised version of the model with its theoretical competitors. Tests of the novel predictions of the model are then reviewed. This section also reviews experiments claimed not to be consistent with optimal data selection. Finally, theoretical criticisms of optimal data selection are discussed. It is argued either that the revised model accounts for them or that they do not stand up under analysis. It is concluded that some version of the optimal data selection model still provides the best account of the selection task. Consequently, the conclusion of Oaksford and Chater's (1994) original rational analysis (Anderson, 1990), that people's hypothesis-testing behavior on this task is rational and well adapted to the environment, still stands.

show abstract

“…It is rational, in comprehension, to take into account all the information given. For instance, when subjects are provided detailed information about the frequency of the different types of cards, as in Pollard and Evans (1983) or Kirby (1994), it is rational for them to assume that this information is relevant to their performance of the task. It is rational to take into account not just the truth-conditional content of a text, but also the way this content is formulated.…”

Section: The Logic and Pragmatics Of The Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance theory explains the selection task

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a general and predictive explanation of the Wason Selection Task (where subjects are asked to select evidence for testing a conditional "rule"). Our explanation is based on a reanalysis of the task, and on Relevance Theory. We argue that subjects' selections in all true versions of the Selection Task result from the following procedure. Subjects infer from the rule directly testable consequences. They infer them in their order of accessibility, and stop when the resulting interpretation of the rule meets their expectations of relevance. Subjects then select the cards that may test the consequences they have inferred from the rule. Order of accessibility of consequences and expectations of relevance vary with rule and context, and so, therefore, does subjects' performance. By devising appropriate rule-context pairs, we predict that correct performance can be elicited in any conceptual domain. We corroborate this prediction with four experiments. We argue that past results properly reanalyzed confirm our account. We discuss the relevance of the Selection Task to the study of reasoning.

show abstract

The effect of experimentally contrived experience on reasoning performance

Cited by 35 publications

References 20 publications

Probabilistic Effects in Data Selection

Probabilistic Effects in Data Selection

Optimal data selection: Revision, review, and reevaluation

Relevance theory explains the selection task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About