Effects of amount of evidence and range of rule on the use of hypothesis and target tests by groups in rule-discovery tasks
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 10 (4):321 – 354 (2004)
This experiment investigated the use of positive and negative hypothesis and target tests by groups in an adaptation of the 2-4-6 Wason task. The experimental variables were range of rule (small vs large), amount of evidence (low vs high), and trial block (1 vs 2). The results were in accordance with Klayman and Ha's (1987) analysis of base rate probabilities of falsification and with additional theoretical considerations. Base rate probabilities were more descriptive of participants' behaviour in target than in hypothesis tests, under low than under high amount of evidence, and at the beginning of the process than at its end. The percentage of positive tests was higher under small than large range of rule. More falsifications than verifications resulted from hypothesis tests than would be expected by a random process. When evidence is richly available, the relative importance of falsification seems to decrease. An analysis of the group compositions before and after group discussion by the PCD model (Crott, Werner, & Hoffmann, 1996) revealed that the normative weight was approximately twice as large as the informational. Groups produced fewer false answers than their members individually.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Géry D'Ydewalle, Walter Schaeken, Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schroyens & Aline Sevenants (2008). Truth Table Tasks: The Relevance of Irrelevant. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):409-433.
Barbara A. Spellman (1999). Hypothesis Testing: Strategy Selection for Generalising Versus Limiting Hypotheses. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):67 – 92.
Davis Baird (1984). Tests of Significance Violate the Rule of Implication. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:81 - 92.
Robin P. Cubitt, Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden (2001). Discovered Preferences and the Experimental Evidence of Violations of Expected Utility Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (3):385-414.
M. L. G. Redhead (1981). Experimental Tests of the Sum Rule. Philosophy of Science 48 (1):50-64.
Aldo Zanga & Jean-Fran (2004). Implicit Learning in Rule Induction and Problem Solving. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (1):55 – 83.
Deborah G. Mayo (1991). Novel Evidence and Severe Tests. Philosophy of Science 58 (4):523-552.
E. Kurt Lienau & Rob DeSalle (2009). Evidence, Content and Corroboration and the Tree of Life. Acta Biotheoretica 57:187–199.
Aline Sevenants, Walter Schroyens, Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schaeken & G. (2008). Truth Table Tasks: The Relevance of Irrelevant. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):409-433.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #361,129 of 1,099,741 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #303,379 of 1,099,741 )
How can I increase my downloads?