Graduate studies at Western
Thinking and Reasoning 15 (3):294-315 (2011)
|Abstract||Wason's standard 2-4-6 task requires discovery of a single rule and leads to around 20% solutions, whereas the dual goal (DG) version requires discovery of two rules and elevates solutions to over 60%. We report an experiment that aimed to discriminate between competing accounts of DG facilitation by manipulating the degree of complementarity between the to-be-discovered rules. Results indicated that perfect rule complementarity is not essential for task success, thereby undermining a key tenet of the goal complementarity account of DG facilitation. The triple heterogeneity account received a good degree of support since more varied triple exploration was associated with facilitatory DG conditions, in line with this account's prediction that task success is associated with the creative search of the problem space. The contrast class account (an extension of Oaksford & Chater's, 1994, iterative counterfactual model) was also corroborated in that the generation of descending triples was demonstrated to be the dominant predictor of DG success. We focus our discussion on conceptual ideas relating to the way in which iterative counterfactual testing and contrast class identification may work together to provide a powerful basis for effective hypothesis testing|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Strevens (2003). The Role of the Priority Rule in Science. Journal of Philosophy 100 (2):55-79.
Yunn-Wen Lien & Wei-Lun Lin (2011). From Falsification to Generating an Alternative Hypothesis: Exploring the Role of the New-Perspective Hypothesis in Successful 2-4-6 Task Performance. [REVIEW] Thinking and Reasoning 17 (2):105 - 136.
Aldo Zanga & Jean-Fran (2004). Implicit Learning in Rule Induction and Problem Solving. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (1):55 – 83.
Cynthia Koenig & Richard Griggs (2004). Facilitation and Analogical Transfer in the THOG Task. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (4):355 – 370.
Jean E. Pretz & Corinne Zimmerman (2011). When the Goal Gets in the Way: The Interaction of Goal Specificity and Task Difficulty. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (4):405-430.
Richard A. Griggs Richard, D. Platt Stephen, E. Newstead Sherri & L. Jackson (1998). Attentional Factors in a Disjunctive Reasoning Task. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (1):1 – 14.
George L. Dunbar (2000). Traces of Reasoning with Pragmatic Schemas. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (2):173 – 181.
Pascal Wagner-Egger (2007). Conditional Reasoning and the Wason Selection Task: Biconditional Interpretation Instead of Reasoning Bias. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):484 – 505.
Lorenzo Bernasconi-Kohn (2006). How Not to Think About Rules and Rule Following: A Response to Stueber. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (1):86-94.
Maggie Gale & Linden J. Ball (2009). Exploring the Determinants of Dual Goal Facilitation in a Rule Discovery Task. Thinking and Reasoning 15 (3):294 – 315.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-07-27
Total downloads1 ( #292,723 of 739,457 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,457 )
How can I increase my downloads?