Generation of hypotheses in Wason's 2-4-6 task: An information theory approach

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 309-332

  Cherubini, Paolo ^a   Castelvecchio, Elena ^b   Cherubini, Anna Maria ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILANO BICOCCA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SALENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; LEARNING; MALE; PROBLEM SOLVING; REVIEW;

ADULT; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION THEORY; MALE; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; SET (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 13844306216     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980343000891     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471-517.
2. Adsit, D. J., & London, M. (1997). Effects of hypothesis generation on hypothesis testing in rule-discovery tasks. The Journal of General Psychology, 124, 19-34.
3. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1996). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley.
4. Chaitin, G. J. (1975). A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. Journal of the Association for Computing Machines, 22, 329-340.
5. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
6. Farris, H. H., & Revlin, R. (1989a). Sensible reasoning in two tasks: Rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation. Memory and Cognition, 17, 221-232.
7. Farris, H. H., & Revlin, R. (1989b). The discovery process: A counterfactual strategy. Social Studies of Science, 19, 497-513.
8. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
9. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
10. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
12. Goertzel, B. (1993). The structure of intelligence: A new mathematical model of mind. New York: Springer Verlag.
13. Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., & Burks, A. (Eds.). (1931-1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1-8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52, 35-44.
15. Houser, N., & Kloesel, C. (Eds.). (1992). The essential Peirce (Vol. 1). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
16. Kareev, Y., Halberstadt, N., & Shafir, D. (1993). Improving performance and increasing the use of non-positive testing in a rule-discovery task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 729-742.
17. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
18. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1989). Hypothesis testing in rule discovery: Strategy, structure, and content. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 596-604.
19. Kolmogorov, A. N. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission, 1, 1-7.
20. Nisbett, R. E. (Ed.). (1993). Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994a). Another look at eliminative and enumerative behaviour in a conceptual task. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 149-169.
22. Oaksford, M. R., & Chater, N. (1994b). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
23. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
24. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
25. Rossi, S., Caverni, J. P., & Girotto, V. (2001). Hypothesis testing in a rule discovery problem: When a focused procedure is effective. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 263-267.
26. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 319-423.
27. Spellman, B. A., Lopez, A., & Smith, E. E. (1999). Hypothesis testing. Strategy selection for generalizing versus limiting hypotheses. Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 67-91.
28. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Austin, N. G., & Ramkin, S. (1995). Inducing a rule in Wason's 2-4-6 task: A test of the information-quantity and goal complementarity hypotheses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 895-914.
29. Van der Helm, P. A. (2000). Simplicity versus likelihood in visual perception: From surprisals to precisals. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 770-800.
30. Van der Henst, J. B. (2002). La perspective pragmatique dans l'étude du raisonnement et de la rationalité. L'Année Psychologique, 102, 65-108.
31. Van der Henst, J. B., Rossi, S., & Schroyens, W. (2002). When participants are not misled they are not so bad after all: A pragmatic analysis of a rule discovery task. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (COGSCI, pp. 902-907).
32. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.