FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2622150416> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2622150416 abstract "Similarities and Individual Differences in the Wason Selection Task: An Item Response Theory Analysis Kuninori Nakamura (knaka@ky.hum.titech.ac.jp) Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Graduate School of Decision Science & Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology 2-12-1, Ohkayama, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan Abstract The four-card selection task (Wason, 1966) has been one of the most well-known tasks used in the literature on human reasoning. This article aimed to analyze this selection task by item response theory (Lord & Novick, 1968). Japanese undergraduates (N = 327 and 277 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) responded to up to 10 types of representative Wason selection tasks, including the indicative task (Wason, 1966), beer task (Griggs & Cox, 1982), and cassava task (Cosmides & Tooby, 1989). The results of the analysis by the two-parameter logistic model indicated the following: the indicative task was similar to the beer and cassava tasks in terms of the discrimination parameter, and relative difficulty between the tasks would vary according to the value of theta, estimated by the two-parameter logistic model. Keywords: Four-card selection task; item response theory; individual difference Introduction The Wason selection task (Wason, 1966) has been one of the most well-known tasks used in the literature on human reasoning. In its original version, the participants are presented with a conditional rule of the form, “if P, then Q,” and four cards with information about P on one side and information about Q on the other side. The visible sides of the four cards display the information, P, not-P, Q, and not- Q. The participant’s task is to indicate which of the four cards needs to be turned over in order to determine whether the rule has been violated. Although the Wason selection task is very simple, it is well-known because of the low percentage of the correct response to the original version of this task (Wason, 1966), or the thematic content effect (Wason & Shapiro, 1971; Johnson-Laird, Legrenzi, & Legrenzi, 1972). The purpose of this study is to explore the latent factor behind the Wason selection task. In doing so, we briefly review the literature on selection tasks and point out that a quantitative multivariate analysis fruitfully contributes to this literature. Subsequently, we argue that item response theory (IRT: Lord & Novick, 1968) is adequate to describe the latent factor behind the various types of selection tasks. We also report two studies that analyzed selection tasks by IRT and concluded that the selection tasks are similar to each other, and individual differences in logical reasoning ability may affect participants’ interpretations of the thematic content effect (Wason & Shapiro, 1971; Johnson- Laird, Legrenzi, & Legrenzi, 1972). This provides important theoretical suggestions to the domain of human reasoning. The Wason selection task and its variations It is well known that people often deviate from the normative principle when solving logical reasoning tasks. The most impressive example of the irrationality of human reasoning in the logical domain is the Wason selection task (Wason, 1966). In the original version of this task, participants are shown four cards, two of which display a letter and the other two, a digit. They are told that all four cards have a letter on one side and a digit on the other. Further, they are given a certain rule such as “if a card has a vowel on one side, it has an even number on the reverse.” The participants are then asked to turn over those cards that they believe will determine whether the rule is true. To test the rule appropriately, participants must check “E” and “7.” Despite the apparent simplicity of the selection task, it is notoriously difficult for people to solve correctly. Typically, less than 10% of the participants are able to determine the logically correct solution to the task. It is also known that a participant’s performance on the selection task increases substantially when the content of the conditionals is more concrete. For example, in Griggs and Cox’s (1982) experiment, the participants were required to test the rule “if one drinks beer, he must be over 20,” and were shown four cards that were assumed to represent a drink and an age as follows: “beer,” “coke,” “21,” and “18.” Griggs and Cox (1982) reported that the participants’ performance improved substantially, and the same findings have been replicated by others (e.g., Cheng & Holyoak, 1985; Cosmides, 1989). This phenomenon is called the thematic content effect (also see Wason & Shapiro, 1971; Johnson-Laird, Legrenzi, & Legrenzi, 1972). To account for the thematic content effect, researchers have proposed various theories such as pragmatic schema theory (Cheng & Holyoak, 1985) and social contract theory (Cosmides, 1989). Recently, it has become common to classify selection tasks into two categories: indicative tasks and deontic tasks (e.g., Evans & Over, 1996). According to this classification, indicative tasks primarily reflect the logical aspect of reasoning while deontic tasks require reasoning on whether a social rule is satisfied. Although no consensus has been reached with respect to the content of the deontic rule (e.g., Cheng & Holyoak, 1985; Cosmides, 1989; Fiddick, 2004), most researchers agree that there is a clear distinction between indicative and deontic tasks. In addition, several researchers (Kirby, 1994; Manketlow & Over, 1991; Oaksford & Chater, 1994) have pointed out a possibility that the selection task is not a mere logical" @default.
• W2622150416 created "2017-06-15" @default.
• W2622150416 creator A5062143262 @default.
• W2622150416 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W2622150416 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2622150416 title "Similarities and Individual Differences in the Wason Selection Task: An Item Response Theory Analysis" @default.
• W2622150416 cites W1587606825 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W1734631470 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W1969253354 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W1979746498 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W1989930562 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2003078695 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2020993158 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2035782089 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2040981305 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2045163169 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2084398551 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2090688875 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2096800674 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2101286810 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2103287093 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2132736196 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2133469585 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2140951507 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2145400333 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2151097560 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2161527432 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2163775186 @default.
• W2622150416 cites W2167366201 @default.
• W2622150416 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2622150416 type Work @default.
• W2622150416 sameAs 2622150416 @default.
• W2622150416 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2622150416 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2622150416 hasAuthorship W2622150416A5062143262 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C23161992 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C2780451532 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C554144382 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConcept C87007009 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C105795698 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C142362112 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C154945302 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C15744967 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C162324750 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C180747234 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C187736073 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C23161992 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C2780451532 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C33923547 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C41008148 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C52119013 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C554144382 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C77805123 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C81917197 @default.
• W2622150416 hasConceptScore W2622150416C87007009 @default.
• W2622150416 hasIssue "31" @default.
• W2622150416 hasLocation W26221504161 @default.
• W2622150416 hasOpenAccess W2622150416 @default.
• W2622150416 hasPrimaryLocation W26221504161 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W125370439 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W126595034 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W1608468198 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2022794858 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2024551695 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2033152059 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2043499223 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2045800507 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2066987116 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2068585707 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2075569865 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2080828554 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2081498113 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2090994704 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W270557020 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2767448063 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W3048432488 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W3157248710 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W608844215 @default.
• W2622150416 hasRelatedWork W2136886632 @default.
• W2622150416 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2622150416 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2622150416 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2622150416 magId "2622150416" @default.
• W2622150416 workType "article" @default.