Conditional reasoning and the Wason selection task: Biconditional interpretation instead of reasoning bias

Two experiments were conducted to show that the IF … THEN … rules used in the different versions of Wason's (1966 Wason, P. C. 1966. “Reasoning”. In New horizons in psychology I, Edited by: Foss, B. M. Harmondsworth, , UK: Penguin.  [Google Scholar]) selection task are not psychologically—though they are logically—equivalent. Some of these rules are considered by the participants as strict logical conditionals, whereas others are interpreted as expressing a biconditional relationship. A deductive task was used jointly with the selection task to show that the original abstract rule is quite ambiguous in this respect, contrary to deontic rules: the typical “error” made by most people may indeed be explained by the fact that they consider the abstract rule as a biconditional. Thus, there is no proper error or bias in the selection task as it is still argued, but a differential interpretation of the rule. The need for taking into account a pragmatic component in the process of reasoning is illustrated by the experiments.     

Falsification cueing in collective reasoning: example of the Wason selection task

This paper focuses on the effectiveness of groups, as opposed to individuals, in benefiting from falsification cueing in solving the Wason selection task. Consistent with the idea that groups use information that often individuals fail to use, Experiment 1 showed that groups (but not individuals) that received falsification cueing focused more on cue‐consistent evidence in their reasoning. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the increment in focus on cue‐consistent evidence is moderated by the distribution of the falsification cue within a group. Finally, Experiment 3 demonstrated that the cue distribution affects collective focus on cue‐consistent evidence through the content of the group discussion, namely through mentioning the cue during the discussion. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Domain-general contributions to social reasoning: theory of mind and deontic reasoning re-explored

Using older adults and dual-task interference, we examined performance on two social reasoning tasks: theory of mind (ToM) tasks and versions of the deontic selection task involving social contracts and hazardous conditions. In line with performance accounts of social reasoning, evidence from both aging and the dual-task method suggested that domain-general resources contribute to performance of these tasks. Specifically, older adults were impaired relative to younger adults on all types of social reasoning tasks tested; performance varied as a function of the demands these tasks placed on domain-general resources. Moreover, in younger adults, simultaneous performance of a working memory task interfered with younger adults' performance on both types of social reasoning tasks; here too, the magnitude of the interference effect varied with the processing demands of each task. Limits placed on social reasoning by executive functions contribute a great deal to performance, even in old age and in healthy younger adults under conditions of divided attention. The role of potentially non-modular and modular contributions to social reasoning is discussed.     

Domains of deontic reasoning: Resolving the discrepancy between the cognitive and moral reasoning literatures

Deontic reasoning has been studied in two subfields of psychology: the cognitive and moral reasoning literatures. These literatures have drawn different conclusions about the nature of deontic reasoning. The consensus within the cognitive reasoning literature is that deontic reasoning is a unitary phenomenon, whereas the consensus within the moral reasoning literature is that there are different subdomains of deontic reasoning. We present evidence from a series of experiments employing the methods of both literatures suggesting that people make a systematic distinction between two types of deontic rule: social contracts and precautions. The results call into question the prevailing opinion in the cognitive reasoning literature and provide further support for both an evolutionary view of deontic reasoning and the more domain-specific perspective found in the moral reasoning literature.     

Development of the deontic advantage in reasoning: Reply to Cummins

In response to Cummins’s report that comments on our article (Dack & Astington, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2011, Vol. 110, pp. 94–114), this article clarifies our perspective on what constitutes the deontic advantage, and notes similarities and differences between Cummins’s perspective and our own. Like Cummins, we believe that young children are capable of deontic reasoning and that methodological factors alone cannot explain this ability. However, we maintain that it is important to be precise about methodology in order to facilitate investigation of how the deontic advantage changes over developmental time, and this question is our main interest, although as yet incompletely answered. Contrary to Cummins, we do not think that existing data can speak to the issue of the potential innateness of deontic reasoning. We also disagree with Cummins’s perspective on norm versus normative proposition and with some of her comparisons between deontic and epistemic phenomena.     

Context and rule manipulations on the Wason selection task

‘Food and drinks’ is a thematic content known not to produce differential performance to abstract content on the Wason selection task. To examine the effects of context on problem responses, this content was set in a ‘diet’ context, predicted to produce differential performance, and this context was compared both with the ‘food and drinks’ presentation previously used and with abstract content. Additionally, both conditional and universal rules were used, producing six cells to the design, 12 subjects being tested in each cell. Results revealed a significant difference between the rules (in the form a rule by content interaction), content having a significant effect only when the conditional rules were used. For these rules, subjects made significantly more correct solutions in the diet condition than in the abstract condition, whereas there was no evidence of differential performance between the (other) thematic and the abstract condition. Although it is admitted that no satisfactory explanation of the rule differences seems apparent, the effect of context observed is encouraging for this line of research. It is concluded that, as subjects are shown to be capable of coding the general idea of a counter-example into relevant specific selections, they are quite capable of solving the task, but that they fail to do so unless the solution is cued by, and its outcome would be consistent with, their pre-existing belief structures.     

Perspective effects in nondeontic versions of the Wason selection task

Perspective effects in the Wason four-card selection task occur when people choose mutually exclusive sets of cards depending on the perspective they adopt when making their choice. Previous demonstrations of perspective effects have been limited to deontic contexts--that is, problem contexts that involve social duty, like permissions and obligations. In three experiments, we demonstrate perspective effects in nondeontic contexts, including a context much like the original one employed by Wason (1966, 1968). We suggest that perspective effects arise whenever the task uses a rule that can be interpreted biconditionally and different perspectives elicit different counterexamples that match the predicted choice sets. This view is consistent with domain-general theories but not with domain-specific theories of deontic reasoning--for example, pragmatic reasoning schemas and social contract theory--that cannot explain perspective effects in nondeontic contexts.     

Superordinate principles in reasoning with causal and deontic conditionals

We propose that the pragmatic factors that mediate everyday deduction, such as alternative and disabling conditions (e.g. Cummins et al., 1991) and additional requirements (Byrne, 1989) exert their effects on specific inferences because of their perceived relevance to more general principles, which we term SuperPs. Support for this proposal was found first in two causal inference experiments, in which it was shown that specific inferences were mediated by factors that are relevant to a more general principle, while the same inferences were unaffected by factors not relevant to the general principle. These results were extended to deontic inferences in two further experiments. Taken together, these findings show that unstated superordinate principles play a significant role in certain types of reasoning. Questions raised by the findings for the main theoretical approaches are discussed.     

Social roles and utilities in reasoning with deontic conditionals

A set of experiments is reported in which a new formulation of deontic thinking is tested. This is that people represent subjective utilities inherent in conforming to or violating deontic statements, along with the social dynamics of these statements. The experiments used Wason's selection task and tested people's understanding of conditional permission. In the first two experiments, familiar scenarios referring to family interactions were used. In the third, an imaginary business content was used. In both cases it was apparent that people's thinking depended on their representation of the utilities associated with the agent of a permission statement (the party who lays down the rule) and the actor (the party whose behaviour is its target). The results are discussed as favouring an explanation in terms of mental models, rather than the schema theories which have dominated this field hitherto.     

Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning

This paper compares two ways of formalising defeasible deontic reasoning, both based on the view that the issues of conflicting obligations and moral dilemmas should be dealt with from the perspective of nonmonotonic reasoning. The first way is developing a special nonmonotonic logic for deontic statements. This method turns out to have some limitations, for which reason another approach is recommended, viz. combining an already existing nonmonotonic logic with a deontic logic. As an example of this method the language of Reiter's default logic is extended to include modal expressions, after which the argumentation framework in default logic of [20, 22] is used to give a plausible logical analysis of moral dilemmas and prima facie obligations.An earlier version of this article was written while the author was working at the Department of Computing, Imperial College London, supported by ESRC/MRC/SERC Joint Council Initiative Project G9212036. Work on the present version was supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and by Esprit WG 8319 Modelage. I thank one of the referees for his interesting comments. Also, many thanks are due to Marek Sergot for valuable discussions on the topic of this paper.     

Evidence of deontic reasoning in 3- and 4-year-old children

Deontic reasoning is reasoning about what one may, ought, or ought not do in a given set of circumstances. Virtually all of our social institutions and child-rearing practices presume the capacity to reason about deontic concepts, such as what is permitted, obligated, or prohibited. Despite this, very little is known about the development of deontic reasoning. Two experiments were conducted that contrasted children’s reasoning performance on deontic and indicative reasoning tasks (i.e., the reduced array selection version of the Wason card selection task). Like adults, children as young as 3 years of age were found to adopt a violation-detecting strategy more often when reasoning about the deontic case than when reasoning about the indicative case. These results indicate that violation detection emerges as an effective deontic reasoning very early in human development.     

The effect of instructions on performance in the Wason selection task

The effect of instructions on performance on the standard abstract form of Wason’s selection task was examined. Instructions to determine whether or not the statement is violated did not lead to an increase in correct responding, contrary to previous suggestions that such instructions would induce falsification strategies, but rather to an increase in verification bias. Instructions to determine whether the statement is true or false led to increased variability in performance, supporting the suggestion that such instructions are inherently ambiguous. Thus, the results demonstrate that the form of instructions can have a significant effect on performance in the selection task. Verification bias did better as an explanation of the data than did matching bias, which only fared well when its predictions coincided with those of verification bias. A substantial proportion of the data was unaccounted for by either of these strategies, which is consistent with the findings of a number of other recent studies.     

四卡问题解决中的视角效应

视角效应是指在四卡问题解决中,当被试从不同的角度来对条件规则进行检验时,其选择偏向会在卡片P,-Q和-P,Q之间发生稳定变化的现象。到目前为止,义务和非义务推理中都发现了该效应的存在,不同的推理理论都试图对此作出解释,却一直存在分歧,其焦点在于视角效应的形成机制是领域特殊性的还是领域一般性的。该文评述了不同的演绎推理理论对视角效应发生机制作出的解释,并且最后总结了该领域目前研究存在的主要争论。     

Elementary, my dear Wason: The role of problem representation in the THOG task

The present study was concerned with Wason's THOG problem, a hypothetico-deductive reasoning task for which performance over the past 20 years has typically been very poor (<20% correct). We examined the hypothesis that incorporating a quasi-visual context into the problem statement would make both the binary, symmetric tree structure and solution principle of the THOG task clearer and thus facilitate performance. A version of O'Brien et al.'s (Q J Exp Psychol 42A:329–351) Blackboard THOG problem, that specifies each branch of the tree by describing a specific location for each possible color-shape combination, was used to test this hypothesis. Substantial facilitation was both observed (68% correct) and replicated (73% correct), and it was also shown that it is necessary to provide a representation of both sides of the tree to obtain this level of facilitation. The implications of these results for human deductive reasoning are considered. Received: 1 November 2000 / Accepted: 4 May 2001     

No interpretation without representation: the role of domain-specific representations and inferences in the Wason selection task

The Wason selection task is a tool used to study reasoning about conditional rules. Performance on this task changes systematically when one varies its content, and these content effects have been used to argue that the human cognitive architecture contains a number of domain-specific representation and inference systems, such as social contract algorithms and hazard management systems. Recently, however, Sperber, Cara & Girotto (Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95) have proposed that relevance theory can explain performance on the selection task - including all content effects - without invoking inference systems that are content-specialized. Herein, we show that relevance theory alone cannot explain a variety of content effects - effects that were predicted in advance and are parsimoniously explained by theories that invoke domain-specific algorithms for representing and making inferences about (i) social contracts and (ii) reducing risk in hazardous situations. Moreover, although Sperber et al. (1995) were able to use relevance theory to produce some new content effects in other domains, they conducted no experiments involving social exchanges or precautions, and so were unable to determine which - content-specialized algorithms or relevance effects - dominate reasoning when the two conflict. When experiments, reported herein, are constructed so that the different theories predict divergent outcomes, the results support the predictions of social contract theory and hazard management theory, indicating that these inference systems override content-general relevance factors. The fact that social contract and hazard management algorithms provide better explanations for performance in their respective domains does not mean that the content-general logical procedures posited by relevance theory do not exist, or that relevance effects never occur. It does mean, however, that one needs a principled way of explaining which effects will dominate when a set of inputs activate more than one reasoning system. We propose the principle of pre-emptive specificity - that the human cognitive architecture should be designed so that more specialized inference systems pre-empt more general ones whenever the stimuli centrally fit the input conditions of the more specialized system. This principle follows from evolutionary and computational considerations that are common to both relevance theory and the ecological rationality approach.     

Reasoning versus text processing in the Wason selection task: A nondeontic perspective on perspective effects

We argue that perspective effects in the Wason four-card selection task are a product of the linguistic interpretation of the rule in the context of the problem text and not of the reasoning process underlying card selection. In three experiments, participants recalled the rule they used in either a selection or a plausibility rating task. The results showed that (1) participants tended to recall rules compatible with their card selection and not with the rule as stated in the problem and (2) recall was not affected by whether or not participants performed card selection. We conclude that perspective effects in the Wason selection task do not concern how card selection is reasoned about but instead reflect the inferential text processing involved in the comprehension of the problem text. Together with earlier research that showed selection performance in nondeontic contexts to be indistinguishable from selection performance in deontic contexts (Almor & Sloman, 1996; Sperber, Cara, & Girotto, 1995), the present results undermine the claim that reasoning in a deontic context elicits specialized cognitive processes.     

The Impact of Necessity and Sufficiency in The Wason Four-Card Selection Task

Performance in the Wason card selection task is often improved given thematic content. Such content effects have been considered evidence against human rationality. We propose that the role of content lies in specifying premises underlying "if P, then Q" rules. Unlike thematic rules, abstract conditional rules do not explicitly provide material interpretation (P is a sufficient but not necessarily a necessary condition for Q), resulting in nonnormative responses. When necessity–sufficiency relations were explicated, normative responses were elicited and effects of other logically irrelevant components disappeared. The results suggest that content effects are compatible with human rationality.     

Concrete problems in the abstract deontic selection task - and how to solve them

The abstract deontic selection task was introduced by Cheng and Holyoak with the aim of demonstrating that people possess abstract reasoning schemas for processing deontic rules about what an individual must, must not, may, or need not do. Solving this task requires people to detect possible rule violators. The average solution rate across several studies, while being substantially higher than that with abstract nondeontic tasks, did not reach the level obtained with concrete deontic tasks. A task analysis based on the deontic principles by Beller uncovers several problems with the formulation of the original task. They concern the presentation of the deontic rule as well as the instructions (focusing on rule following) and result in a specific selection behaviour. Three experiments replicate the difficulties with the original task and show that task performance increases when the formulation problems are resolved. The best performance was obtained with a task that combined a genuine violation detection instruction with a genuine permission rule. Interestingly, permissions are weak deontic rules that, if taken literally, cannot be violated in a deontic sense. Therefore, people must interpret these rules as implying a strong deontic constraint (i.e., a ban), which then constitutes the basis for solving the task. The results provide novel insights into the interpretation of deontic rules and into the role that these content-specific, but abstract, tasks can play for the study of reasoning processes.