World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Wason selection task

Article Id: WHEBN0000823236
Reproduction Date:

Title: Wason selection task  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Dual process theory, Rationality, Confirmation bias, Psychology of reasoning, Artificial intelligence
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Wason selection task

Each card has a number on one side, and a patch of color on the other. Which card(s) must be turned over to test the idea that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?

The Wason selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by Peter Cathcart Wason in 1966.[1][2][3] It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning.[4] An example of the puzzle is:

You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?

A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants).

The importance of the experiment is not in justifying one answer of the ambiguous problem, but in demonstrating the inconsistency of applying the logical rules by the people when the problem is set in two different contexts but with very similar connection between the facts.

Solution

The correct response is to turn over only the 8 and brown cards.

The rule was "If the card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red." Only a card with both an even number on one face and something other than red on the other face can invalidate this rule:

  • If the 3 card is red (or brown), that doesn't violate the rule.
  • If the 8 card is brown, that violates the rule.
  • If the red card is odd (or even), that doesn't violate the rule.
  • If the brown card is even, that violates the rule.

Use of logic

The interpretation of "if" here is that of the material conditional in classical logic, so this problem can be solved by choosing the cards using modus ponens (all even cards must be checked to ensure they are red) and modus tollens (all non-red cards must be checked to ensure they are non-even).

Explanations of performance on the task

In Wason's study, not even 10% of subjects found the correct solution.[5] This result was replicated in 1993.[6]

Some authors have argued that participants do not read "if... then..." as the material conditional, since the natural language conditional is not the material conditional.[7][8] (See also the paradoxes of the material conditional for more information.) However one interesting feature of the task is how participants react when the classical logic solution is explained:

A psychologist, not very well disposed toward logic, once confessed to me that despite all problems in short-term inferences like the Wason Card Task, there was also the undeniable fact that he had never met an experimental subject who did not understand the logical solution when it was explained to him, and then agreed that it was correct.[9]

This latter comment is also controversial, since it does not explain whether the subjects regarded their previous solution incorrect, or whether they regarded the problem sufficiently vague to have two interpretations.

Policing social rules

As of 1983, experimenters had identified that success on the Wason selection task was highly content-dependent, but there was no theoretical explanation for which content elicited mostly correct responses and which ones elicited mostly incorrect responses.[10]

Evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (1992) identified that the selection task tends to produce the "correct" response when presented in a context of social relations.[10] For example, if the rule used is "If you are drinking alcohol then you must be over 18", and the cards have an age on one side and beverage on the other, e.g., "16", "drinking beer", "25", "drinking coke", most people have no difficulty in selecting the correct cards ("16" and "beer").[10] In a series of experiments in different contexts, subjects demonstrated consistent superior performance when asked to police a social rule involving a benefit that was only legitimately available to someone who had qualified for that benefit.[10] Cosmides and Tooby argued that experimenters have ruled out alternative explanations, such as that people learn the rules of social exchange through practice and find it easier to apply these familiar rules than less-familiar rules.[10]

According to Cosmides and Tooby, this experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that a Wason task proves to be easier if the rule to be tested is one of social exchange (in order to receive benefit X you need to fulfill condition Y) and the subject is asked to police the rule, but is more difficult otherwise. They argued that such a distinction, if empirically borne out, would support the contention of evolutionary psychologists that human reasoning is governed by context-sensitive mechanisms that have evolved, through natural selection, to solve specific problems of social interaction, rather than context-free, general-purpose mechanisms.[10] In this case, the module is described as a specialized cheater-detection module.[10]

Davies et al. (1995) have argued that Cosmides and Tooby's argument in favor of context-sensitive, domain-specific reasoning mechanisms as opposed to general-purpose reasoning mechanisms is theoretically incoherent and inferentially unjustified.[11] Cosmides and Tooby have adapted the Wason selection task to test for one aspect of propositional logic while ignoring general-purpose reasoning based on syllogistic logic, predicate logic, modal logic, and inductive logic. They assumed that the domain-specific hypothesis was correct without first ruling out the general-purpose hypothesis. Moreover, the experiments intended to show that reasoning is not governed by general-purpose rules either fail to eliminate the general-purpose hypothesis or else actually provide evidence supporting it, which according to Davies and his colleagues suggests that the argument in favor of domain-specific reasoning might be empirically false. In addition to that, Cosmides and Tooby assume that reasoning is either determined exclusively by domain-specific or general-purpose algorithms, a dichotomy that Davies et al. view as misconceived.[11]

See also

References

  1. ^ Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3):273-281.
  2. ^  
  3. ^  
  4. ^ Manktelow, K. I. (1999). Reasoning and Thinking. Psychology Press. p. 8.  
  5. ^ Wason, P. C. (1977). "Self-contradictions". In  
  6. ^ Evans, Jonathan St. B. T.; Newstead, Stephen E.; Byrne, Ruth M. J. (1993). Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction. Psychology Press.  
  7. ^ Oaksford, M.; Chater, N. (1994). "A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection".  
  8. ^ Stenning, K.; van Lambalgen, M. (2004). "A little logic goes a long way: basing experiment on semantic theory in the cognitive science of conditional reasoning". Cognitive Science 28 (4): 481–530.  
  9. ^ van Benthem, Johan (2008). "Logic and reasoning: do the facts matter?". Studia Logica 88 (1): 67–84.  
  10. ^ a b c d e f g  
  11. ^ a b Davies, Paul Sheldon; Fetzer, James H.; Foster, Thomas R. (1995). "Logical reasoning and domain specificity".  

Further reading

External links

  • Here is the general structure of a Wason selection task — from the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara
  • CogLab: Wason Selection — from Wadsworth CogLab 2.0 Cognitive Psychology Online Laboratory
  • Elementary My Dear Wason – interactive version of Wason Selection Task at PhilosophyExperiments.Com
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.