Sensible reasoning in two tasks: rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation
The hypothesis testing skills of undergraduates were measured in two tasks: the 2-4-6 rule discovery task in which students generate and assess hypotheses, and a hypothesis evaluation task, which requires only the assessment of hypotheses. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 show that the students co...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Memory & cognition 1989-03, Vol.17 (2), p.221-232 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 232 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 221 |
| container_title | Memory & cognition |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | FARRIS, H. H REVLIN, R |
| description | The hypothesis testing skills of undergraduates were measured in two tasks: the 2-4-6 rule discovery task in which students generate and assess hypotheses, and a hypothesis evaluation task, which requires only the assessment of hypotheses. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 show that the students consistently employed a disconfirmation strategy when assessing hypotheses, but employed a counterfactual inference strategy when they also were required to generate the hypotheses. The results of Experiment 3 suggest that the selection of the hypothesis testing strategy reflected a balance between the logical requirements of the task and the desirability of possible outcomes. Taken together, the findings support a more consistent picture of human rationality across tasks, and suggest alternatives to accounts of confirmation bias. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3758/BF03197071 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78911882</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78911882</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3171-a037ef48c5f2d0322f808cd7b78070f70cd50dc7ff8914eeea4a65dbe11d28453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10cFrFDEUBvAglbqtXrwLQy09CKMvyWRfpje7tFpY8KCCtyGbvNhpZ5NtMrOy_30jXSoUPOXw_d7HI4-xtxw-SlT608UVSN4iIH_BZlxJUau2mR-wGUALtQLx6xU7yvkWAJRq54fsULQCy8iMXX-nkPvVQFUik2Pow--qD9X4J1ajyXf5vEpTCV2fbdxS2lUmuOpmt4njDeU-V7Q1w2TGPobX7KU3Q6Y3-_eY_by6_LH4Wi-_fblefF7WVnLktQGJ5BttlRcOpBBeg7YOV6gBwSNYp8BZ9F63vCEi05i5civi3AndKHnMzh57NyneT5THbl2Wo2EwgeKUOyxzXGtR4MkzeBunFMpuneBYmngjC3r_P8RFK4XUyLGoD4_KpphzIt9tUr82addx6P6eoPt3goLf7Sun1ZrcE93_eclP97nJ1gw-mWD7_MRQSGznXD4AlSeL5w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1293238717</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sensible reasoning in two tasks: rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>FARRIS, H. H ; REVLIN, R</creator><creatorcontrib>FARRIS, H. H ; REVLIN, R</creatorcontrib><description>The hypothesis testing skills of undergraduates were measured in two tasks: the 2-4-6 rule discovery task in which students generate and assess hypotheses, and a hypothesis evaluation task, which requires only the assessment of hypotheses. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 show that the students consistently employed a disconfirmation strategy when assessing hypotheses, but employed a counterfactual inference strategy when they also were required to generate the hypotheses. The results of Experiment 3 suggest that the selection of the hypothesis testing strategy reflected a balance between the logical requirements of the task and the desirability of possible outcomes. Taken together, the findings support a more consistent picture of human rationality across tasks, and suggest alternatives to accounts of confirmation bias.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-502X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-5946</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/BF03197071</identifier><identifier>PMID: 2927319</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MYCGAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Austin, TX: Psychonomic Society</publisher><subject>Adult ; Attention ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cognition ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognition. Intelligence ; Communication disorders ; Concept Formation ; Decision Making ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Hypotheses ; Hypothesis testing ; Problem Solving ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reasoning. Problem solving</subject><ispartof>Memory & cognition, 1989-03, Vol.17 (2), p.221-232</ispartof><rights>1989 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science & Business Media Mar 1989</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3171-a037ef48c5f2d0322f808cd7b78070f70cd50dc7ff8914eeea4a65dbe11d28453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3171-a037ef48c5f2d0322f808cd7b78070f70cd50dc7ff8914eeea4a65dbe11d28453</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27852,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=7237961$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2927319$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>FARRIS, H. H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>REVLIN, R</creatorcontrib><title>Sensible reasoning in two tasks: rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation</title><title>Memory & cognition</title><addtitle>Mem Cognit</addtitle><description>The hypothesis testing skills of undergraduates were measured in two tasks: the 2-4-6 rule discovery task in which students generate and assess hypotheses, and a hypothesis evaluation task, which requires only the assessment of hypotheses. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 show that the students consistently employed a disconfirmation strategy when assessing hypotheses, but employed a counterfactual inference strategy when they also were required to generate the hypotheses. The results of Experiment 3 suggest that the selection of the hypothesis testing strategy reflected a balance between the logical requirements of the task and the desirability of possible outcomes. Taken together, the findings support a more consistent picture of human rationality across tasks, and suggest alternatives to accounts of confirmation bias.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognition. Intelligence</subject><subject>Communication disorders</subject><subject>Concept Formation</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Hypothesis testing</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reasoning. Problem solving</subject><issn>0090-502X</issn><issn>1532-5946</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp10cFrFDEUBvAglbqtXrwLQy09CKMvyWRfpje7tFpY8KCCtyGbvNhpZ5NtMrOy_30jXSoUPOXw_d7HI4-xtxw-SlT608UVSN4iIH_BZlxJUau2mR-wGUALtQLx6xU7yvkWAJRq54fsULQCy8iMXX-nkPvVQFUik2Pow--qD9X4J1ajyXf5vEpTCV2fbdxS2lUmuOpmt4njDeU-V7Q1w2TGPobX7KU3Q6Y3-_eY_by6_LH4Wi-_fblefF7WVnLktQGJ5BttlRcOpBBeg7YOV6gBwSNYp8BZ9F63vCEi05i5civi3AndKHnMzh57NyneT5THbl2Wo2EwgeKUOyxzXGtR4MkzeBunFMpuneBYmngjC3r_P8RFK4XUyLGoD4_KpphzIt9tUr82addx6P6eoPt3goLf7Sun1ZrcE93_eclP97nJ1gw-mWD7_MRQSGznXD4AlSeL5w</recordid><startdate>198903</startdate><enddate>198903</enddate><creator>FARRIS, H. H</creator><creator>REVLIN, R</creator><general>Psychonomic Society</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>SDSKB</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198903</creationdate><title>Sensible reasoning in two tasks: rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation</title><author>FARRIS, H. H ; REVLIN, R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3171-a037ef48c5f2d0322f808cd7b78070f70cd50dc7ff8914eeea4a65dbe11d28453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognition. Intelligence</topic><topic>Communication disorders</topic><topic>Concept Formation</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Hypothesis testing</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reasoning. Problem solving</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>FARRIS, H. H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>REVLIN, R</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 43</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Memory & cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>FARRIS, H. H</au><au>REVLIN, R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sensible reasoning in two tasks: rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Memory & cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Mem Cognit</addtitle><date>1989-03</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>221</spage><epage>232</epage><pages>221-232</pages><issn>0090-502X</issn><eissn>1532-5946</eissn><coden>MYCGAO</coden><abstract>The hypothesis testing skills of undergraduates were measured in two tasks: the 2-4-6 rule discovery task in which students generate and assess hypotheses, and a hypothesis evaluation task, which requires only the assessment of hypotheses. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 show that the students consistently employed a disconfirmation strategy when assessing hypotheses, but employed a counterfactual inference strategy when they also were required to generate the hypotheses. The results of Experiment 3 suggest that the selection of the hypothesis testing strategy reflected a balance between the logical requirements of the task and the desirability of possible outcomes. Taken together, the findings support a more consistent picture of human rationality across tasks, and suggest alternatives to accounts of confirmation bias.</abstract><cop>Austin, TX</cop><pub>Psychonomic Society</pub><pmid>2927319</pmid><doi>10.3758/BF03197071</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0090-502X |
| ispartof | Memory & cognition, 1989-03, Vol.17 (2), p.221-232 |
| issn | 0090-502X 1532-5946 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78911882 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Adult Attention Biological and medical sciences Cognition Cognition & reasoning Cognition. Intelligence Communication disorders Concept Formation Decision Making Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Humans Hypotheses Hypothesis testing Problem Solving Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reasoning. Problem solving |
| title | Sensible reasoning in two tasks: rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T18%3A15%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sensible%20reasoning%20in%20two%20tasks:%20rule%20discovery%20and%20hypothesis%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=Memory%20&%20cognition&rft.au=FARRIS,%20H.%20H&rft.date=1989-03&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=221&rft.epage=232&rft.pages=221-232&rft.issn=0090-502X&rft.eissn=1532-5946&rft.coden=MYCGAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/BF03197071&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78911882%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1293238717&rft_id=info:pmid/2927319&rfr_iscdi=true |