推理方向与规则维度对儿童因果推理的影响

采用Frye和Zelazo等（1996）所设计的“二进二出”装置（斜面滚球装置）,设置了不同的推理方向、规则维度的因果推理任务,采用个别实验法,研究了60名3.5～4.5岁儿童因果推理能力的发展。结果发现：（1）儿童在不同方向的因果推理任务上成绩差异显著,因→果推理成绩要好于果→因推理;（2）不同维度下儿童的推理成绩有极显著的差异性,一维的因果推理更容易,三维合取规则的因果推理任务更难;（3）3.5～4岁左右是儿童因果推理能力发展的快速期。     

3~4岁儿童规则因果推理能力的训练研究

学前期是儿童多种推理能力产生和发展的重要时期。本研究(以64名3岁儿童为被试,采用Frye和Zelazo等所设计的“二进二出”装置,通过对3岁儿童的规则因果推理能力进行训练,从而探索儿童规则因果推理的内在机制。在本研究条件下,结果发现:1.年龄与训练的交互效应不显著,各年龄组儿童经过训练后,成绩的提高没有显著差异;2.规则与训练的交互效应显著,竖直规则下,儿童通过训练后提高的成绩不显著,但在交叉规则下前测后测成绩差异极其显著;3.训练效应显著,暴露因果机制,给予及时反馈和阐述规则时附加手势这些信息能促进年幼儿童对高级规则的掌握。     

规则的不同特点对儿童判断的影响

本研究探讨不同领域的规则(安全领域规则,个人领域规则)和不同的规则提出者(成人权威,同辈权威)对儿童判断的影响。研究考察了48名4~7岁的儿童在道义推理、奖惩判断、愿望理解和行为判断的发展变化特点。结果表明:(1)直到7岁儿童才能根据规则的不同特点做出不同的判断,7岁儿童预测更不应该违反安全领域规则,违反安全领域规则和成人权威制定的规则后应该受到更多的批评,而4岁组和5岁组儿童在不同规则情境下的判断没有显著差异;(2)各年龄组儿童预测应该给予表扬的数量在各情境下没有显著差异;(3)在规则与愿望相冲突时,高年龄组儿童比低年龄组儿童更多地报告主人公会坚持自己的愿望;(4)在预测主人公是否会违反规则上,各年龄组在不同规则情境下均无显著差异。     

内容和形式对毒品成瘾者条件推理的影响

本研究通过比较推理内容与推理形式对毒品成瘾者推理成绩的影响,以探究影响毒品成瘾者能力成绩的主要内在机制。实验采用了2(四卡片形式vs选择项形式)×2(描述性规则vs社会契约规则)混合设计,以240名男性戒毒人员为研究对象,考察他们在不同推理内容与不同推理形式下的条件推理作业成绩。结果发现:(1)就规则内容来看,描述性规则内容在选择项形式上的得分好于四卡片形式,社会契约规则内容在两种呈现形式下的成绩没有显著差异;(2)就规则呈现形式来看,四卡片形式下的描述性规则得分显著地低于社会契约规则得分; 选择项形式下两类规则内容得分无显著差异。结果表明:毒品成瘾者的条件推理行为既受到推理内容的影响,也受到逻辑规则呈现形式的影响。     

儿童对情绪表达规则的认知发展

情绪表达规则知识的建构是儿童社会化和情绪健康发展过程中的一项重要任务,该文考察了情绪表达规则的概念及个体对其认知发展的相关理论和测量。同时,对情绪表达规则的认知发展从3个方面进行了探讨：儿童对情绪表达规则认知发展的关键阶段是小学,并且具有显著的年龄差异和性别差异;家庭情绪环境分别从不同方面对儿童情绪表达规则的认知发展水平有显著影响;儿童对情绪表达规则的认知发展水平与其社会能力有显著的正相关。     

10～12岁儿童在平衡秤任务上的规则使用及其复杂性

以256名10～12岁儿童为被试,采取规则评估方法探讨了儿童在平衡秤任务上的规则使用类型及其年龄特点,并尝试使用认知复杂性和控制理论对此加以分析和解释.结果表明:(1)除了Siegler所谓的四种规则和补偿规则以外,儿童还使用了规则ⅢA和距离规则,其中规则ⅢA并不特指单一的规则,而是代表儿童在掌握了规则Ⅲ之后向更高级的规则Ⅳ发展的不稳定期和过渡期;(2)10～12岁儿童中使用规则Ⅲ的人数显著多于使用补偿规则的人数,对此认知复杂性和控制理论能够提供较好的解释;(3)规则Ⅰ仍是10～12岁儿童使用的主要规则,并非Siegler认为的主要是4、5岁儿童使用此规则.     

行为规则和社会角色对儿童攻击行为倾向的影响

本研究选择了5～9岁儿童各60名，通过实验研究了不同年龄儿童在不同行为规则情境和角色关系下儿童攻击性倾向水平。研究结果表明，随着年龄增长，儿童对不同行为规则情境下的攻击性倾向差异增加；同时，能够更好认识角色所具有的敌意，更理智地采取攻击行为。并描述了这些变化的趋势。     

3、4岁儿童数数的规则及其策略运用的研究

数数能力是儿童用于建构其数学知识系统的重要工具,是儿童早期获得的最基本的数认知能力之一。本研究以234名3、4岁儿童为被试,采用个别测查法对儿童数数的规则及其策略运用进行了考察。研究发现：(1)随着数列数目的增大,3、4岁儿童数数精确性呈下降趋势,但4岁儿童在各项任务上的数数精确性显着高于3岁儿童;(2)3、4岁儿童在数7、10、15、30任务上的错误表现有显着差别;(3）3、4岁儿童数数策略运用存在显着差别．协方差分析显示。策略使用在数7和数10任务上具有显着效应。     

小学儿童对日常生活事件时间关系推理能力的初探

探查小学儿童对含有“在什么之前”“同时”日常生活事件时间关系的推理发展过程及其影响因素。被试为7岁、9岁、11岁3个年龄组共54名小学儿童,每个年龄组18人。4种问题模式分别为带有传递关系的单模型问题、带有无关前提的单模型问题、含两个前提的单模型问题、有肯定答案的多模型问题。每种问题模式含3种具体探察任务。主要研究结果表明：在本实验条件下,（1）儿童对事件时间顺序关系的推理从7岁到9岁有快速发展的趋势;（2）单模型和多模型任务无显著差异,模型数量似乎不是影响儿童推理成绩的关键因素;（3）儿童能够主动采用5种策略解决问题。逆向关系传递策略是问题解决的有效策略。     

“如果P,那么Q,……?”─—儿童充分条件假言演绎推理能力发展初探

以日常生活事件为内容的三套测验题探查了9－15岁儿童充分条件假言推理能力的发展。研究发现被试有关能力的发展可以区分出三种不同水平；儿童对充分条件假言推理规则的掌握没有固定的难易顺序，这取决于课题任务的性质和主体思维发展水平。研究还探查了发展的个体内部差异和个体之间的差异以及影响差异的各种内外因素。     

3～5岁幼儿在主题-规则冲突条件下的类比推理

本研究采用经典类比任务,考察了3～5岁幼儿在主题-规则冲突条件下类比推理发展的水平与特点.结果表明:(1)在无主题联想条件下,幼儿的单维类比推理在3～4岁迅速发展,4～5岁发展较为平缓,而双维类比推理在3～5岁仍处于较低水平.(2)在主题—规则冲突条件下,幼儿在单维类比推理中表现出一定的主题联想优势反应;幼儿在双维类比推理中表现出较强的主题联想优势反应,年龄特点为:3岁幼儿有较强的主题联想优势反应,4岁幼儿的主题联想优势反应明显下降,而5岁幼儿又表现出较强的主题联想优势反应.     

The influence of complexity and reasoning direction on children's causal reasoning

Causal reasoning is the core and basis of cognition about the objective world. This experiment studied the development of causal reasoning in 86 3.5–4.5-year-olds using a ramp apparatus with two input holes and two output holes [Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D., & Palfai, T. (1995). Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning. Cognitive Development 10, 483–527]. Results revealed that: (1) children performed better on cause–effect inferences than on effect–cause inferences; (2) there was an effect of rule complexity such that uni-dimensional causal inferences were easier than bi-dimensional inferences which, in turn, were easier than tri-dimensional causal inferences; and (3) children's causal reasoning develops rapidly between the ages of age of 3.5 and 4 years.     

Automatic and controlled components of judgment and decision making

The categorization of inductive reasoning into largely automatic processes (heuristic reasoning) and controlled analytical processes (rule-based reasoning) put forward by dual-process approaches of judgment under uncertainty (e.g., K. E. Stanovich & R. F. West, 2000) has been primarily a matter of assumption with a scarcity of direct empirical findings supporting it. The present authors use the process dissociation procedure (L. L. Jacoby, 1991) to provide convergent evidence validating a dual-process perspective to judgment under uncertainty based on the independent contributions of heuristic and rule-based reasoning. Process dissociations based on experimental manipulation of variables were derived from the most relevant theoretical properties typically used to contrast the two forms of reasoning. These include processing goals (Experiment 1), cognitive resources (Experiment 2), priming (Experiment 3), and formal training (Experiment 4); the results consistently support the author's perspective. They conclude that judgment under uncertainty is neither an automatic nor a controlled process but that it reflects both processes, with each making independent contributions.     

From models to rules: mechanization of reasoning as a way to cope with cognitive overloading in combinatorial problems

It is hypothesized that the transition from unfamiliar problems to familiar, well-learned problems coincides with the transition from a model-based style of reasoning to a rule-based style of reasoning; model-based style of reasoning helps understanding the problem structure, but can overload working memory when the number of models required increases; rule-based style of reasoning avoids cognitive overloading, at the cost of making individuals liable to mechanization errors. In Experiment 1, the number of models required to respond to a verification task affected response latencies with unfamiliar problems, but not with familiar problems, supporting the initial hypothesis. In Experiment 2, participants were prone to mechanization errors when confronted with slightly modified problems in the late stages of the experiment, supporting the hypothesis that they had developed a reasoning rule in the early stages and were blindly applying it. The findings suggest that model-based reasoning and rule-based reasoning serve different purposes and have different costs and benefits, are both available to human reasoners, and familiarization with a problem may induce the transition from the former to the latter. The findings also suggest that mechanization of reasoning may be the first step along a gradient of decreasing cognitive load, whose end-point is automatization, as discussed in theories of automatization of information processing.     

Strategies in temporal reasoning

Researchers currently working on relational reasoning typically argue that mental model theory (MMT) is a better account than the inference rule approach (IRA). They predict and observe that determinate (or one-model) problems are easier than indeterminate (or two-model) problems, whereas according to them, IRA should lead to the opposite prediction. However, the predictions attributed to IRA are based on a mistaken argument. The IRA is generally presented in such a way that inference rules only deal with determinate relations and not with indeterminate ones. However, (a) there is no reason to presuppose that a rule-based procedure could not deal with indeterminate relations, and (b) applying a rule-based procedure to indeterminate relations should result in greater difficulty. Hence, none of the recent articles devoted to relational reasoning currently presents a conclusive case for discarding IRA by using the well-known determinate vs indeterminate problems comparison.     

Medical Students’ Decisions About Authorship in Disputable Situations: Intervention Study

In medicine, professional behavior and ethics are often rule-based. We assessed whether instruction on formal criteria of authorship affected the decision of students about authorship dilemmas and whether they perceive authorship as a conventional or moral concept. A prospective non-randomized intervention study involved 203s year medical students who did (n = 107) or did not (n = 96) received a lecture on International Committee of Medical Journal editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria. Both groups had to read 3 vignettes and answer 4 questions related to the distinction between conventional and moral domains. Written justification of student’ choices whether the authorship in a vignette was right or wrong was rated by 4 independent raters as based on justice or a rule. Formal instruction had no effect on students’ decisions on authorship in the vignettes (44, 34 and 39% ICMJE-consistent answers for 3 vignettes, respectively, by students receiving instruction vs. 38, 42 and 30% for those without instruction; P > 0.161 for all vignettes). For all dilemmas, more students decided contrary to ICMJE criteria and considered their decisions to be a matter of obligation and not a choice and to be general across situations and sciences. They were willing to change their decision if a rule was different only for peer situations but not for mentor–mentee situations. The number of students who used rule-based justification of their ICMJE criteria-consistent decisions was significantly higher in the instructed than in the uninstructed group. Instruction about formal authorship criteria had no effect on student’s decisions about authorship dilemmas and their decisions were related to the moral rather than a conventional domain. Teaching about authorship and other professionalism and integrity issues may benefit from interventions that bring intuitive processes into awareness instead of those fostering rule-based reasoning.     

How abstract is symbolic thought?

In 4 experiments, the authors explored the role of visual layout in rule-based syntactic judgments. Participants judged the validity of a set of algebraic equations that tested their ability to apply the order of operations. In each experiment, a nonmathematical grouping pressure was manipulated to support or interfere with the mathematical convention. Despite the formal irrelevance of these grouping manipulations, accuracy in all experiments was highest when the nonmathematical pressure supported the mathematical grouping. The increase was significantly greater when the correct judgment depended on the order of operator precedence. The result that visual perception impacts rule application in mathematics has broad implications for relational reasoning in general. The authors conclude that formally symbolic reasoning is more visual than is usually proposed.