Lecture 9- reasoning 2(kev) Flashcards
who created the Wason task and when
Peter Wason (1966)
what does the wason selection task used to perform
- Used to study performance on conditional reasoning propositions/arguments/problems
what is - Conditional proposition in relation to the wason task
- Conditional proposition (if P then Q):
o e.g., If a card has a vowel on one side of it, then it has an even number on its other side - type of questioning
what is the method of the wason selection task
- pps presented with 4 cards
- Conditional proposition (if P then Q):
o e.g., If a card has a vowel on one side of it, then it has an even number on its other side
- Conditional proposition (if P then Q):
- Participants asked:
o Which two cards must be turned over to discover whether the following rule is true?
o Rule: If a card has a vowel on one side of it, then it has an even number on its other side - Choice of cards determines performance
what are the typical results of the wason selection taskk
~ 70% of participants choose ‘E’ and ‘4’ cards
‘E’ and ‘4’ cards chosen ~ 70% of time
this is the logical choice but not the correct choice
why are cards e and 4 wrong to select on the wason selection task
permits affirmation- by choosing E (Modus ponens)
choosing ‘4’ card doesn’t permit denial of consequent (modus tollens) conditional inference (‘not Q’)
what is the logical choice of cards
o E’ and ‘7’: logical (correct) choice of cards
Choosing ‘7’ permits check of whether (logically-valid) modus tollens (denial of consequent) conditional inference can be made
• ‘not Q’ (i.e., ‘not an even number’)
Turning over ‘7’ (not an even number) card permits check of proposition’s truth
• If vowel on ‘7’ card, then proposition is false
• If consonant on ‘7’ card, then proposition is true
what is a more relATABLE version of the wason selection task called
Drinking age’ version of WST
- Rule: If a person is drinking beer (P), then they must be over 18 (Q)
what are the results of the drinking age version of the WST
o Results: most (~ 90%) participants chose logically correct cards most of time (~ 90%)
‘Beer’ and ’16’ (‘p’ and ‘not q’) cards should be turned over to establish truth of ‘rule’ (proposition)
o Why did logical reasoning improve on the drinking age task ?
People are familiar with real world rules and laws, so can reason correctly about propositions that involve them (Evans & Over, 1996)
what is negation
- Research evidence of reasoning being poorer when propositions involve negation (‘not’)
how did wason 1965 experiment about negation
Sentence Verification Task
what are the results of the Sentence Verification Task
o Participants slower at drawing correct (logical) or incorrect (non-logical) conclusions for propositions/arguments involving negative than positive statements/elements
o Reasoning about alternatives is cognitively-taxing
what is are the issues with the Sentence Verification Task o negatoion
- Competence:
o Reasoners untrained in logic tend to solve problems at above chance levels - Bias:
o Reasoners often respond to non-logical features of tasks - Content:
o Logical reasoning dependent on task content - Knowledge:
o Prior experience affects logical reasoning
what is rationality
- Hallmark of ‘good’ thinking and reasoning
- Thinking consistent with, or based on, logic
- Concerns methods not outcomes of thought
o How we reason, not what conclusions we draw - Rationality not same as accuracy
- Irrationality not same as error or bias
o Accuracy and bias/error are outcomes of thinking
what is bounded rationality
- Theory to explain rationality given *cognitive (and external?) *constraints
what is an example of bounded rationality
., limited working memory capacity
what does simon 1957 say about bounded rationality
reasoning considered rational if it violates normative standards (e.g., logic) but achieves personal goals
o Given cognitive and external constraints (e.g., time pressure), our reasoning still allows us to function pretty successfully in the world
how is our reasoning said to be rational
- Our reasoning is, to some extent, rational
o e.g., we try to make informed judgements - But, we don’t have cognitive resources to understand everything we encounter
- Also, we often don’t have (or wish to devote) sufficient time to reasoning
o e.g., due to lack of interest in topic
o Non-cognitive factors arguably at play
o e.g., motivation
what are the 2 types of rationality
- System 1: reasoning according to achieving one’s goals and meeting one’s needs
- System 2: reasoning according to normative standards
who proposed the 2 types of rationality
(Sloman, 1996)
explain system 1 of slomans 2 types of rationality
- System 1 (Sloman, 1996)
o Goal-directed rationality
‘Rationality 1’ (Evans & Over, 1996)
Rapid, automatic (often pre-conscious) process influenced by beliefs, background knowledge, prior experience and learning
e.g., taking quickest route home from work
Rational in achieving one’s goals, but doesn’t conform to principles of logic
o Rational reasoning that serves everyday needs
e.g., taking route to work that’s objectively-longer but avoid likely traffic ‘black-spot’
Rapid, automatic reasoning based on beliefs, learning and prior knowledge
o Aware of outcome of thought process but unaware of thought process itself (Sloman, 1996)
explain system 2 of slomans 2 types of rationality
- System 2 (Sloman, 1996)
o Rule-based rationality
‘Rationality 2’ (Evans & Over, 1996)
o Adhering to logic
Slow, deliberative, conscious process linked with complex cognition (e.g., task planning, hypothetical thinking and counterfactual thinking)
o Rational reasoning that conforms to principles of logic
Slow, deliberative reasoning involved in complex cognition (e.g., task planning)
e.g., drawing conclusions based on good evidence
o Aware of thought process as well as outcome of thought process (Sloman, 1996)
what evidence did evans and over provide for the 2 types of ratinality
- Belief bias effect:
o When conclusion hard to draw (logically), belief about syllogism dominates inference made
o Relying on prior belief consistent with System 1 reasoning, but not consistent with System 2
o Thus, implies non-logical reasoning - Explicit and tacit thought processes?
o Tacit: task-specific and resistant to training
o Explicit: general and depend on practice/training - Abstract version of Wason Selection Task
o Cards chosen before being confirmed; longer inspection times for chosen cards - 2 reasoning systems used sequentially?
o Non-conscious process for Wason task card choice then conscious logical justification process - Belief bias in syllogistic reasoning
o Prior believability of claim’s conclusion affects logical reasoning performance
how are you able to test the dual systems theories
- Possibly ways to test dual-systems theories:
o Time pressure to induce System 1 reasoning
o Instructions to induce System 2 reasoning
what do dual systems provide us with evidence about
- Provide neat (intuitive?) explanation of how we reason pretty effectively in everyday life
- Explains why reasoning often non-rational when judged against principles of logic
- But, little empirical support (claims based on review of existing work), so largely untested
- Possible testing methods
o System 1 induced by time constraint/time pressure
o System 2 induced by instructions (‘think carefully’)
are we non rational thinkers
- Depends on how rationality defined
- We typically don’t (explicitly, at least) conform to logic principles in daily reasoning
o e.g., non-cognitive factors have impact - But, we often draw correct conclusions and make good decisions about complex things
- So, we generally seem to be rational by System 1’s standards if not by System 2’s
what are the - Dual-systems theory of rational reasoning
o Systems 1 and 2: differential conformity with logic
