Conditional reasoning and the Wason selection task: Biconditional interpretation instead of reasoning bias.
Saved in:
| Title: | Conditional reasoning and the Wason selection task: Biconditional interpretation instead of reasoning bias. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Wagner-Egger, Pascal (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Thinking & Reasoning. Nov2007, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p484-505. 22p. 3 Charts, 4 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Logic, Conditionals (Logic), Deontic logic, Ambiguity, Reasoning |
| Abstract: | Two experiments were conducted to show that the IF ... THEN ... rules used in the different versions of Wason's (1966) 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Thinking & Reasoning is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: pbh DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection An: 26946162 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Conditional reasoning and the Wason selection task: Biconditional interpretation instead of reasoning bias. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wagner-Egger%2C+Pascal%22">Wagner-Egger, Pascal</searchLink> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Thinking+%26+Reasoning%22">Thinking & Reasoning</searchLink>. Nov2007, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p484-505. 22p. 3 Charts, 4 Graphs. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logic%22">Logic</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conditionals+%28Logic%29%22">Conditionals (Logic)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deontic+logic%22">Deontic logic</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ambiguity%22">Ambiguity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reasoning%22">Reasoning</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Two experiments were conducted to show that the IF ... THEN ... rules used in the different versions of Wason's (1966) 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Thinking & Reasoning is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=26946162 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/13546780701415979 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 22 StartPage: 484 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Logic Type: general – SubjectFull: Conditionals (Logic) Type: general – SubjectFull: Deontic logic Type: general – SubjectFull: Ambiguity Type: general – SubjectFull: Reasoning Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Conditional reasoning and the Wason selection task: Biconditional interpretation instead of reasoning bias. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Wagner-Egger, Pascal IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Text: Nov2007 Type: published Y: 2007 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 13546783 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 13 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Thinking & Reasoning Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
