Logical reasoning and probabilities: A comprehensive test of Oaksford and Chater (2001)

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 521-527

  Oberauer, Klaus ^a   Weidenfeld, Andrea ^a   Hörnig, Robin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4544366052     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196605     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. CHATER, N., & OAKSFORD, M. (1999). The probability heuristics model of syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 191-258.
2. ERDFELDER, E., FAUL, F., & BUCHNER, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1-11.
3. EVANS, J. S. B. T. (1996). Decide before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 223-240.
4. EVANS, J. S. B. T., NEWSTEAD, S. E., & BYRNE, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
5. EVANS, J. S. B. T., & OVER, D. E. (1996a). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
6. EVANS, J. S. B. T., & OVER, D.E. (1996b). Rationality in the selection task: Epistemic utility versus uncertainty reduction. Psychological Review, 103, 356-363.
7. GIGERENZER, G., & HOFFRAGE, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684-704.
8. HANDLEY, S., FEENEY, A., & HARPER, C. (2002). Alternative antecedents, probabilities, and the suppression of fallacies in Wason's selection task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 799-818.
9. KIRBY, K. N. (1994). Probabilities and utilities of fictional outcomes in Wason's four-card selection task. Cognition, 51, 1-28.
10. NICKERSON, R. S. (1996). Hempel's paradox and Wason's selection task: Logical and psychological problems of confirmation. Thinking & Reasoning, 2, 1-31.
11. OAKSFORD, M., & CHATER, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
12. OAKSFORD, M., & CHATER, N. (2001). The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 349-357.
13. OAKSFORD, M., CHATER, N., & GRAINGER, B. (1999). Probabilistic effects in data selection. Thinking & Reasoning, 5, 193-243.
14. OAKSFORD, M., CHATER, N., GRAINGER, B., & LARKIN, J. (1997). Optimal data selection in the reduced array selection task (RAST). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 441-458.
15. OAKSFORD, M., CHATER, N., & LARKIN, J. (2000). Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 883-899.
16. OAKSFORD, M., & WAKEFIELD, M. (2003). Data selection and natural sampling: Probabilities do matter. Memory & Cognition, 31, 143-154.
17. OBERAUER, K., WILHELM, O., & ROSAS DIAZ, R. (1999). Bayesian rationality for the selection task? A test of optimal date selection theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 5, 115-144.
18. POLLARD, P., & EVANS, J. S. B. T. (1983). The effect of experimentally contrived experience on reasoning performance. Psychological Research, 45, 287-301.
19. WASON, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135-151). Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.