Facilitation in the Abstract Selection Task: The Effects of Attentional and Instructional Factors

Platt, Richard D.; Griggs, Richard A.

doi:10.1080/14640749308401029

Cited by 50 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an interesting set of recent experiments, Platt and Griggs (1993) found similar results. This, however, is only indirectly relevant to explaining performance with the standard task, where the rule is in conditional form, and without helpful paraphrase.…”

Section: The Instructionssupporting

confidence: 58%

“…As one might expect, the size of this minority is affected by the level of formallogical competence of the population tested (Gigerenzer & Hug, 1992;Hoch & Tschirgi, 1985;Jackson & Griggs, 1988;Lehman & Nisbett, 1990). Some experiments have aimed at increasing the size of this minority by encouraging a more reflective stance (Cheng, Holyoak, Nisbett, & Oliver 1986;Hoch & Tschirgi, 1985;Johnson-Laird & Wason, 1970a;Platt & Griggs, 1993;Wason, 1969). It is conceivable that manipulations yet to be discovered might transform what is still a minority (on strictly standard tasks) into a majority, and induce more subjects to adopt a systematic meta-inferential stance from which they would consistently solve the task.…”

Section: Spontaneous Inference and Reflective Meta-inferencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: The Instructionssupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Spontaneous Inference and Reflective Meta-inferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance theory explains the selection task

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contentful support is, of course, what the various 'quality inspector' scenarios provide. Contentful support is also what permission and obligation schemas, and the 'seek violations' instructions in combination with modal explications of the rule provide, as reported by Platt and Griggs (1993).…”

Section: The Conjunctive Rulementioning

confidence: 65%

“…This might be expected to invoke a deontic interpretation (Kirby's condition is akin to the 'production line inspection scenarios' mentioned before), and so it might be that the improvement observed is for this reason. Platt and Griggs (1993) explored a sequence of instructional manipulations in what they describe as abstract tasks which culminate in 81% correct responding. One of the changes they make is to use instructions to 'seek violations' of the rule, which is relevant here for its relation to instructions to test the truth of an unreliable source.…”

Section: Judging Truthfulness Of An Independent Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

A little logic goes a long way: basing experiment on semantic theory in the cognitive science of conditional reasoning

Stenning¹

2004

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern logic provides accounts of both interpretation and derivation which work together to provide abstract frameworks for modelling the sensitivity of human reasoning to task, context and content. Cognitive theories have underplayed the importance of interpretative processes. We illustrate, using Wason's [Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 20 (1968) 273] selection task, how better empirical cognitive investigations and theories can be built directly on logical accounts when this imbalance is redressed.Subjects quite reasonably experience great difficulty in assigning logical form to descriptively interpreted rules in this task and materials, though not to deontically interpreted ones. The main empirical contrasts in reasoning performance are precisely between these interpretations, so better semantic theory can explain the main empirical effects. However, a more adequate notion of logical form than that typically employed in the psychology of reasoning is required, and we offer a richer alternative.Prima facie evidence that subjects do in fact experience the predicted difficulties in interpreting descriptive materials is provided by analyses of socratic tutoring dialogues. Experimental verification that these difficulties do in fact affect subjects' performance in the standard task is provided by six novel experimental conditions each designed to test different aspects of the semantic predictions.The results bear out the predictions. The semantic distinction between descriptive and deontic rules interacts with the task specifics to provide powerful generalisations about reasoning which surface in detailed explanations of many disparate observations. We conclude that semantic analyses have more direct benefits for psychological investigation than is usually credited, and conversely, that the * Corresponding author.E-mail address: k.stenning@ed.ac.uk (K. Stenning).

show abstract

“…However, Ormerod, Manktelow, and Jones (1993) found that by changing the instructions to E only if V enhanced performance. Platt and Griggs (1993) improved participants' performance by instructing them to look for violations of the rule. Additionally, there have been many studies providing contradictory evidence as to whether or not a realistic context improves performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirmation Bias and Related Errors

Borthwick¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study attempted to replicate and extend the study of Doherty, Mynatt, Tweney, and Schiavo (1979), which introduced what is here called the Bayesian conditionals selection paradigm. The present study used this paradigm (and a script similar to that used by Doherty et al.) to explore confirmation bias and related errors that can appear in both search and integration in probability revision. Despite selection differences and weak manipulations, this study provided information relevant to four important questions.First, by asking participants to estimate the values of the conditional probabilities they did not learn, this study was able to examine the use of "intuitive conditionals". This study found evidence that participants used intuitive conditionals and that their intuitive conditionals were affected by the size of the actual conditionals.Second, by examining both phases in the same study, this study became the first to look for inter-phase interactions. A strong correlation was found between the use of focal search strategies and focal integration strategies (r=.81, p<.001).However, when the sample was limited to participants who selected at least one probability conditioned on each hypothesis, the relationship was near random (r=.02).Third, this study was the first in the Bayesian conditionals selection paradigm to provide a basis for selecting information that would be expected to confirm rather than disconfirm the focal hypothesis. No support was found for predictor selection ii bias, but a nearly significant interaction was found between Attention and Motivation (p=.07) in applying Bayes' theorem only to information favoring the focal hypothesis.Fourth, this study was the first to have a single normative posterior probability, against which participants' posterior probability estimates could be compared to yield a quantitative measure of confirmation bias. This permitted measuring the confirmation bias uniquely contributed by each phase, assuming the participant was normative in the other phase. Focused attention was found to increase confirmation bias in the integration phase (p=.03) but not in the search phase.These last three findings challenge the field's assumption that the search and integration phases can be examined separately, and call for reinterpretation of research done on only one phase.

show abstract

Facilitation in the Abstract Selection Task: The Effects of Attentional and Instructional Factors

Cited by 50 publications

References 23 publications

Relevance theory explains the selection task

Relevance theory explains the selection task

A little logic goes a long way: basing experiment on semantic theory in the cognitive science of conditional reasoning

Confirmation Bias and Related Errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About