Discussion task demands and revising probabilities in the selection task: A comment on green, over, and Pyne
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 4 (2):179 – 186 (1998)
Green, Over, and Pyne's (1997) paper (hereafter referred to as ''GOP") seems to provide a novel approach to examining probabilistic effects in Wason's selection task. However, in this comment, it is argued that their chosen experimental paradigm confounds most of their results. The task demands of the externalisation procedure (Green, 1995) enforce a correlation between card selections and the probability of finding a counterexample, which was the main finding of GOP's experiments. Consequently GOP cannot argue that their data support Kirby's (1994) proposal that people's normal strategy in the selection task is to seek falsifying evidence. Despite this methodological problem, effects of the probability of the antecedent ( p ) of a conditional rule, if p then q , predicted by Kirby (1994) and by Oaksford and Chater (1994) were observed, although they were inconsistent between Experiments 1 and 2. Moreover, the probability estimates that GOP collected, which are not vulnerable to that methodological criticism, do support the idea that when P ( p ) > P ( q ), participants revise P ( p ) down as suggested by Oaksford and Chater (1994).
|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
Keith E. Stanovich Richard & F. West (1998). Cognitive Ability and Variation in Selection Task Performance. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (3):193 – 230.
Erica Lucas & Linden Ball (2005). Think-Aloud Protocols and the Selection Task: Evidence for Relevance Effects and Rationalisation Processes. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (1):35 – 66.
Pascal Wagner-Egger (2007). Conditional Reasoning and the Wason Selection Task: Biconditional Interpretation Instead of Reasoning Bias. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):484 – 505.
Dan Sperber (2002). Use or Misuse of the Selection Task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides, and Tooby. Cognition 85 (3):277-290.
Mike Oaksford (2002). Contrast Classes and Matching Bias as Explanations of the Effects of Negation on Conditional Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):135 – 151.
David K. Hardman (1998). Discussion de-Focusing on the Wason Selection Task: Mental Models or Mental Inference Rules? A Commentary on Green and Larking (1995). Thinking and Reasoning 4 (1):83 – 94.
David W. Green David & E. Over (1998). Reaching a Decision: A Reply to Oaksford. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (2):187 – 192.
Klaus Oberauer, Oliver Wilhelm & Ricardo Rosas Diaz (1999). Bayesian Rationality for the Wason Selection Task? A Test of Optimal Data Selection Theory. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (2):115 – 144.
David W. Green David, E. Over Robin & A. Pyne (1997). Probability and Choice in the Selection Task. Thinking and Reasoning 3 (3):209 – 235.
Mike Oaksford, Nick Chater & Becki Grainger (1999). Probabilistic Effects in Data Selection. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (3):193 – 243.
Added to index2009-02-11
Total downloads9 ( #378,786 of 1,934,425 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,405 of 1,934,425 )
How can I increase my downloads?