Think-aloud protocols and the selection task: Evidence for relevance effects and rationalisation processes

A novel understanding of the nature of epistemic vice

My aim in this paper is to present and discuss a novel understanding of the nature of epistemic vice. I highlight that epistemic vice such as excessive curiosity, gossip and excessive inquisitiveness do not obstruct the acquisition, transmission and retention of knowledge and are not characterized by a deficiency of epistemic desires or vicious epistemic motivations. However, I argue that such traits ought to be classified as epistemic vices because the agent who possesses them causes epistemic harm to other agents through those traits' characteristic activities. To remedy obstructivism's inability to account for vices that cause epistemic harm in other ways besides blocking effective epistemic inquiry, I propose an amended version of this theory. I argue that epistemic vices are character traits, attitudes, and ways of thinking that obstruct the acquisition, transmission, and retention of knowledge and/or cause other kinds of epistemic harm. In addition, I propose a modified version of motivationalism that cashes out non-obstructing, excess-motivation vices in terms of motivation simply by acknowledging, and incorporating into theory, excessive epistemic drives and the negative epistemic (and non-epistemic) consequences stemming from them.

Task relevance effect on number/shape conflict detection in the number-matching task: An ERP study

It is debatable whether the task relevance effect on a conflict occurs in the detection or in the inhibition underlying sequential matching. To explore this issue, three types of number pairs, identical (e.g., 12, 12), conserved (e.g., 12, ), and non-conserved (e.g., 12, 15) pairs, were displayed to be judged as perceptually (identical shape condition) or quantitatively (identical value condition) the same. Both error rates and RTs for the three types of number pairs showed different patterns to detect perceptual mismatch in the identical shape condition and number inequivalence in the identical value conditions. The event-related potential (ERP) results showed that increased N200 and N400 as well as decreased P300 were triggered by the conserved and non-conserved pairs in contrast to identical pairs in the identical shape condition and by the non-conserved pairs relative to the conserved and identical pairs in the identical value condition. These results showed that task-relevant mismatches were attended to and detected in both conditions. Therefore, for the task-relevance effect on a conflict, attention is selectively directed to task-relevant features rather than inhibiting task-irrelevant conflict.

Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate

Dual-process and dual-system theories in both cognitive and social psychology have been subjected to a number of recently published criticisms. However, they have been attacked as a category, incorrectly assuming there is a generic version that applies to all. We identify and respond to 5 main lines of argument made by such critics. We agree that some of these arguments have force against some of the theories in the literature but believe them to be overstated. We argue that the dual-processing distinction is supported by much recent evidence in cognitive science. Our preferred theoretical approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and load heavily on working memory.

The intersection between Descriptivism and Meliorism in reasoning research: further proposals in support of 'soft normativism'

The rationality paradox centers on the observation that people are highly intelligent, yet show evidence of errors and biases in their thinking when measured against normative standards. Elqayam and Evans’ (2011) reject normative standards in the psychological study of thinking, reasoning and deciding in favor of a ‘value-free’ descriptive approach to studying high-level cognition. In reviewing Elqayam and Evans’ (2011) position, we defend an alternative to descriptivism in the form of ‘soft normativism,’ which allows for normative evaluations alongside the pursuit of descriptive research goals. We propose that normative theories have considerable value provided that researchers: (1) are alert to the philosophical quagmire of strong relativism; (2) are mindful of the biases that can arise from utilizing normative benchmarks; and (3) engage in a focused analysis of the processing approach adopted by individual reasoners. We address the controversial ‘is–ought’ inference in this context and appeal to a ‘bridging solution’ to this contested inference that is based on the concept of ‘informal reflective equilibrium.’ Furthermore, we draw on Elqayam and Evans’ (2011) recognition of a role for normative benchmarks in research programs that are devised to enhance reasoning performance and we argue that such Meliorist research programs have a valuable reciprocal relationship with descriptivist accounts of reasoning. In sum, we believe that descriptions of reasoning processes are fundamentally enriched by evaluations of reasoning quality, and argue that if such standards are discarded altogether then our explanations and descriptions of reasoning processes are severely undermined.

Reasoning, biases and dual processes: The lasting impact of Wason (1960)

Wason (1960) published a relatively short experimental paper, in which he introduced the 2-4-6 problem as a test of inductive reasoning. This paper became one of the most highly cited to be published in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology and is significant for a number of reasons. First, the 2-4-6 task itself was ingenious and yielded evidence of error and bias in the intelligent participants who attempted it. Research on the 2-4-6 problem continues to the present day. More importantly, it was Wason's first paper on reasoning and one which made strong claims for bias and irrationality in a period dominated by rationalist writers like Piaget. It set in motion the study of cognitive biases in thinking and reasoning, well before the start of Tversky and Kahneman's famous heuristics and biases research programme. I also show here something for which Wason has received insufficient credit. It was Wason's work on this task and his later studies of his four card selection task that led to the first development of the dual process theory of reasoning which is so dominant in the current literature on the topic more than half a century later.

Toward a cultural-historical perspective on the selection task

Independently of their age, individuals produce weak logical responses when they solve the Wason selection task. Many studies describe conditional reasoning, focusing on intra-individual and general processes. The role of meaning attributed to the situation or the linguistic interpretation of the rules have nevertheless been stressed by pragmatic studies. Few scattered studies show the role of collective situations, of subjects' prior knowledge and of objects in solving the selection task. This paper goes back to the questions raised by the selection task and attempts to place past results into a cultural-historical theoretical framework, which defines a complex and evolving cognitive system, where human beings rely on social exchanges, equip themselves with cultural instruments, create intellectual tools, and give meaning to their experiences. Taking into account such a system is necessary to shed light upon the possibilities for the development of human thinking processes in order to solve selection tasks.

Theory and Metatheory in the Study of Dual Processing

In this article, we respond to the four comments on our target article. Some of the commentators suggest that we have formulated our proposals in a way that renders our account of dual-process theory untestable and less interesting than the broad theory that has been critiqued in recent literature. Our response is that there is a confusion of levels. Falsifiable predictions occur not at the level of paradigm or metatheory—where this debate is taking place—but rather in the instantiation of such a broad framework in task level models. Our proposal that many dual-processing characteristics are only correlated features does not weaken the testability of task-level dual-processing accounts. We also respond to arguments that types of processing are not qualitatively distinct and discuss specific evidence disputed by the commentators. Finally, we welcome the constructive comments of one commentator who provides strong arguments for the reality of the dual-process distinction.

Normative benchmarks are useful for studying individual differences in reasoning

We applaud many aspects of Elqayam & Evans' (E&E's) call for a descriptivist research programme in studying reasoning. Nevertheless, we contend that normative benchmarks are vital for understanding individual differences in performance. We argue that the presence of normative responses to particular problems by certain individuals should inspire researchers to look for converging evidence for analytic processing that may have a normative basis.

Towards a descriptivist psychology of reasoning and decision making

Our target article identifiednormativismas the view that rationality should be evaluated against unconditional normative standards. We believe this to be entrenched in the psychological study of reasoning and decision making and argued that it is damaging to this empirical area of study, calling instead for a descriptivist psychology of reasoning and decision making. The views of 29 commentators (from philosophy and cognitive science as well as psychology) were mixed, including some staunch defences of normativism, but also a number that were broadly supportive of our position, although critical of various details. In particular, many defended a position that we call “soft normativism,” which sees a role for normative evaluation within boundaries alongside more descriptive research goals. In this response, we clarify our use of the term “instrumental rationality” and add discussion of “epistemic rationality,” defining both as descriptive and non-normative concepts. We consider the debate with reference to dual-process theory, the “new paradigm” psychology of reasoning, and empirical research strategy in these fields. We also discuss cognitive variation by age, intelligence, and culture, and the issue of relative versus absolute definitions of norms. In conclusion, we hope at least to have raised consciousness about the important boundaries between norm and description in the psychology of thinking.

Do people reason on the Wason selection task? A new look at the data of Ball et al. (2003)

Despite the popularity of the Wason selection task in the psychology of reasoning, doubt remains as to whether card choices actually reflect a process of reasoning. One view is that while participants reason about the cards and their hidden sides—as indicated by protocol analysis—this reasoning merely confabulates explanations for cards that were preconsciously cued. This hypothesis has apparently been supported by studies that show that participants predominantly inspect cards which they end up selecting. In this paper, we reanalyse the data of one such study, which used eye-movement tracking to record card inspection times (Ball, Lucas, Miles, & Gale, 2003). We show that while cards favoured by matching bias are inspected for roughly equal lengths of times, their selection rates are strongly affected by their logical status. These findings strongly support a two-stage account in which attention is necessary but not sufficient for card selections. Hence, reasoning does indeed affect participants’ choices on this task.

What sense do people make of a theory of planned behaviour questionnaire?: a think-aloud study

This study aimed to understand the processes of interpretation of, and responses to, the task of completing a theory of planned behaviour (TPB) questionnaire. Forty-five adults verbalized their thoughts while completing a full TPB questionnaire on walking behaviour. On average, participants' verbalizations indicated around 16 problems with the 52 questions. Further, problems as identified from verbalizations were associated with increased endorsement of the middle option on the questionnaire. Normative and intention questions were found to be particularly problematic. The current standardized method to develop TPB measures systematically yields problematic questions, as indicated by both talk and questionnaire responses.