1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 「規範性理性」在「Wason選擇作業」上所扮演的角色
從選擇歷程邏輯性與「雙思考系統理論」的角度探究
作者 陳宏道
Chen, Hung-Dao
貢獻者 顏乃欣
Yen, Nai-Shing
陳宏道
Chen, Hung-Dao
關鍵詞 適應性理性
理性爭議
演繹推理
邏輯
雙思考歷程理論
adaptive rationality
rationality debate
deductive reasoning
logic
dual process theories of reasoning
Wason selection task
normative rationality
日期 2002
上傳時間 18-Sep-2009 18:33:24 (UTC+8)
摘要 「Wason選擇作業」是推理心理學領域中相當經典的作業，由於原版的 「Wason 選擇作業」正確率相當低，引發許多學者相繼投入研究，並形成了各種理論。例如「實用推理基模理論」、「社會契約理論」、「相配偏誤理論」、「訊息獲得量理論」、「關聯性理論」等等。歷經約四十年的研究，「Wason選擇作業」從經典的推理作業至今則被許多研究者質疑其成為研究推理歷程作業的 適當性，有些研究者則認為「Wason選擇作業」應被視為決策作業而非推理作業，並認為參與者在這個作業上不會表現出合於邏輯的推理能力。本研究重新以「規範性理性」的角度探究參與者在這個作業上的表現。研究一以「命題解讀作業」做為輔助，發現至少三成的參與者在傳統抽象型式的「Wason選擇作業」中的選擇行為是符合邏輯對應的，這樣的比例並不低於「命題解讀作業」本身的「正確」率。由於在傳統「Wason選擇作業」上要有「正確」表現須正確解讀命題且無其他形式誤解題意再加上符合邏輯的選擇歷程，低正確率可能僅是各歷程「正確」率相乘的效果，而非「選擇歷程」不具邏輯性所致。研究二則以「雙思考系統理論」的觀點設計有利於「系統二」(即分析性系統)歷程表現的評估型「Wason選擇作業」，實驗一與實驗二分別有約四成及五成七的參與者表現符合「規範性理性」的預期。本研究認為過去多數「Wason選擇作業」的研究著重在研究「系統一」(即聯結性系統)的歷程，故未能觀察到參與者高程度的邏輯表現。本研究結果顯示「規範性理性」在「Wason選擇作業」仍扮演重要角色。本研究最後提出新的研究取向並討論「理性爭議」的課題。
參考文獻 徐金雲 (1998)。「條件句邏輯探究」。台中：東海大學哲學系碩士論文。
留佳莉 (1998)。「影響 Wason 選擇作業表現的非推理因素」。台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
陳宏道 (1997)。「Wason選擇作業中誤解題意現象之研究」。未發表。
彭孟堯 (2002)。從認知科學的推想謬誤看邏輯的教與學。載於「兩岸邏輯教學學術會議會議論文集」(52-60頁)。台北：台灣大學哲學系。
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bracewell, R. J. (1974). Interpretation factors in four card selection task. Paper presented at The Selection Task Conference, Trento, Italy.
Bracewell, R. J., & Hide, S. E. (1974). The solution of an inferential problem as a function of stimulus materials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental psychology, 26, 480-488.
Braine, M. D. S., & Rumain, B. (1983). Logical reasoning. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael’s Handbook of child psychology, Vol 3: Cognitive Development. New York: John Wiley.
Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and captial-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7-42.
Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2001). Human rationality and the psychology of reasoning: Where do we go from here? British Journal of Psychology, 92, 193-216.
Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391-416.
Wason, P. C., & Brooks, P. G. (1979). THOG: The anatomy of a problem. Psychological Research, 41, 79-90.
Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1975). Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition, 3, 141-154.
Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. London: Batsford.
Wason, P. C., & Shapiro, D. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 63-71.
Wilkins, M. C. (1928). The Effect of changed material on the ability to do formal syllogistic reasoning. Archives of Psychology, New York, No. 102.
Woodworth, R. S., & Sells, S. B. (1935). An atmosphere effect in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 451-460.
Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Oliver, L. M. (1986). Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 293-328.
Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). On the natural selection of reasoning theories. Cognition, 33, 285-313.
Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317-370.
Copi, I. M., & Burgess-Jackson, K. (1992). Informal Logic. (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillam Publishing Company.
Corral, A. (1999). The effects of rule clarification and attentional factors on Wason`s abstract selection task. Estudios de Psychologia, 63-64, 45-53.
Cosmides, L. (1985). Deduction or Darwinian algorithms? An explanation of the “elusive” content effect on the Wason selection task. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. University microfilm 86-02206.
Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187-276.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and generation of culture, Part II. Case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 51-97.
Cox, J. R., & Griggs, R. A. (1982). The effects of experience on performance in Wason`s selection task. Memory and Cognition, 10, 496-502.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 451-468.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: cause and consequences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1992, July). The Wason selection task: An appreciation. Paper presented to the Second International Conference on Thinking, Plymouth, UK.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1995). Relevance and reasoning. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 147-171). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and Human Reasoning: An Assessment of the Deduction Paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, No. 6, 978-996.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Lynch, J. S. (1973). Matching bias in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 391-397.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Creating a psychology of reasoning: The contribution of Peter Wason. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 1-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, England: Erlbaum.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Evans, J. St. B. T., Over D. E., Manktelow (1993). Reasoning, decision making and rationality. Cognition, 49, 165-187.
Federov, V. V. (1972). Theory of optimal experiments. San Diego: Academic Press.
Feeney, A., & Handley, S. J. (2000). The suppression of q card selections: Evidence for deductive inference in Wason`s Selection Task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A (4), 1224-1242.
Gebauer, G., & Laming, D. (1997). Rational choices in Wason’s selection task. Psychological Research, 60, 284-293.
George, C. (1991). Facilitation in the Wason selection task with a consequent referring to an unsatisfactory outcome. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 463-472.
Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D. J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995): How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102:4, 684-704.
Griggs, R. A. (1995). The effects of rule clarification, decision justification, and selection instruction on Wason`s abstract selection task. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 17-39). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Griggs, R. A., & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason`s selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 407-420.
Griggs, R. A., & Jackson, S. L. (1990). Instructional effects on responses in Wason`s selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 197-204.
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy. Oxford University Press.
Hardman, D. (1998). Does reasoning occur on the selection task? A comparison of relevance-based theories. Thinking and Reasoning, 4(4), 353-376.
Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review. 69, 366-378.
Hertwig, R., Ortmann, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Deductive competence: A desert devoid of content and context. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, 102-107.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York: Basic Books.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Ninth Bartlett memorial lecture: Think as a skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 1-29.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1995). Inference and mental models. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 115-146). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., & Legrenzi, M. S. (1972). Reasoning and sense of reality. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 395-400.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1992). Model reasoning, models, and Manktelow & Over. Cognition, 43, 173-182.
Jong, P. J., Mayer B., & Hout, M. (1997). Conditional reasoning and phobic fear: evidence for a fear-confirming reasoning pattern. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 507-516.
Kahneman, D. (2000). A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes (Commentary on Stanovich and West). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 23, 681-683.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430-454.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuition. Cognition, 11, 123-141.
Kirby, K. N. (1994). Probabilities and utilities of fictional outcomes in Wason`s four-card selection. Cognition, 51, 1-28.
Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, 385-417.
Liberman, N., & Klar, Y. (1996). Hypothesis testing in Wason`s selection task: social exchange cheating detection or task understanding. Cognition, 58, 127-156.
MacKay, D. J. C. (1992). Bayesian methods for adaptive models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.
Manktelow, K. I., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1979). Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or no-effect. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 477-488.
Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking and cognition: A theory of judgment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Margolis, H. (2000). Wason`s selection task with a reduced array. Psycoloquy, 11. Retrieved November 14, 2001, from
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc-bin/newpsy?article=11.005
Moshman, D., & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 4(3), 231-248
Newstead, S. E., & Evans J. St. B. T. (Eds.). (1995). Perspectives on thinking and reasoning. Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1993). Reasoning theories and bounded rationality. In K. I. Manktelow & D. E. Over (Eds.), Rationality (pp. 31-60). London: Routledge.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1995). Theories of reasoning and the computational explanation of everyday inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 121-152.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Rational explanation of the selection task. Psychological Review, 103(2), 381-391.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2001). The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 349-357.
Oaksford, M. (2002). Predicting the results of reasoning experiments: Reply to Feeney and Handley (2000). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A(3), 793-798.
Osman, M., & Laming, D. (2001). Misinterpretation of conditional statements in Wason`s selection task. Psychological research, 65, 128-144.
Peterson. C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29-46.
Platt, R. D., & Griggs, R. A. (1993b). Facilitation in the abstract selection task: the effects of attentional and instructional factors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A(4), 591-613.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Perspective from cognitive psychology, Linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 33-58). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rips, L. J., & Marcus, S. L. (1977). Suppositions and the analysis of conditional sentences. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rips, L. J. (1990). Reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 85-116.
Roberts, M. J. & Newton, E. J. (2001). Inspection time, the change task, and the rapid-response selection task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology. 54A(4), 1031-1048.
Shafir, E. & LeBoeuf R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual review of psychology. 53, 491-517.
Shier, D. (2000). Can human rationality be defended a priori? Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 67-81.
Shiffrin R. M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998a). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 193-230.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998b). Individual difference in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.
Stanovich, K. E., & West R. F. (2000). Individual difference in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-726.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2003). The rationality debate as a progressive research program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 531-534.
Todd, P. M., Fiddick, L., & Krauss, S. (2000). Discussion: Ecological rationality and its contents. Thinking and Reasoning, 6(4), 375-384.
Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Precis of Simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and Brain Science, 23, 727-800.
Todorov, A. (1997). Another look at reasoning experiments: rationality, normative models and conversational factors. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(4), 387-417.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) Availability: heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.
Van Duyne, P. C. (1974). Realism and Linguistic complexity in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 65, 59-67.
Van Duyne, P. C. (1976). Necessity and contingency in reasoning. Acta Psychologica, 40, 85-101.
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New Horizons in Psychology. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 273-281.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學研究所
86752012
91
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0867520121
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 顏乃欣zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Yen, Nai-Shingen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳宏道zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Hung-Daoen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳宏道zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Hung-Daoen_US
dc.date (日期) 2002en_US
dc.date.accessioned 18-Sep-2009 18:33:24 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 18-Sep-2009 18:33:24 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-Sep-2009 18:33:24 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0867520121en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/36438-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 心理學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 86752012zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 91zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 「Wason選擇作業」是推理心理學領域中相當經典的作業，由於原版的 「Wason 選擇作業」正確率相當低，引發許多學者相繼投入研究，並形成了各種理論。例如「實用推理基模理論」、「社會契約理論」、「相配偏誤理論」、「訊息獲得量理論」、「關聯性理論」等等。歷經約四十年的研究，「Wason選擇作業」從經典的推理作業至今則被許多研究者質疑其成為研究推理歷程作業的 適當性，有些研究者則認為「Wason選擇作業」應被視為決策作業而非推理作業，並認為參與者在這個作業上不會表現出合於邏輯的推理能力。本研究重新以「規範性理性」的角度探究參與者在這個作業上的表現。研究一以「命題解讀作業」做為輔助，發現至少三成的參與者在傳統抽象型式的「Wason選擇作業」中的選擇行為是符合邏輯對應的，這樣的比例並不低於「命題解讀作業」本身的「正確」率。由於在傳統「Wason選擇作業」上要有「正確」表現須正確解讀命題且無其他形式誤解題意再加上符合邏輯的選擇歷程，低正確率可能僅是各歷程「正確」率相乘的效果，而非「選擇歷程」不具邏輯性所致。研究二則以「雙思考系統理論」的觀點設計有利於「系統二」(即分析性系統)歷程表現的評估型「Wason選擇作業」，實驗一與實驗二分別有約四成及五成七的參與者表現符合「規範性理性」的預期。本研究認為過去多數「Wason選擇作業」的研究著重在研究「系統一」(即聯結性系統)的歷程，故未能觀察到參與者高程度的邏輯表現。本研究結果顯示「規範性理性」在「Wason選擇作業」仍扮演重要角色。本研究最後提出新的研究取向並討論「理性爭議」的課題。zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents 緒 論 ………………………………………… ……………….. 1
      Wason選擇作業 ………………………………………….. 5
      文獻回顧 …..……………………………………………… 11
      相配偏誤 …………………………………………….. 11
      回憶線索/類比式推理假說 …………………………. 14
      實用推理基模理論 ………………………………….. 15
      社會契約理論 ……………………………………….. 17
      社會契約理論 ……………………………………….. 21
      訊息獲得量理論 …………………….………………. 24
      關聯性理論 ………………………………………….. 28
      誤解題意 …………………………………….………. 32
      卡片表徵假說 ……………………………………….. 35
      各主要理論之比較 ………………………………….. 36
      支持「規範性理性」角度的研究 ………………….. 42
      雙思考系統理論 …………………………………….. 45
      研究問題 …………………………………………………. 51
     研究一 傳統「Wason選擇作業」中選擇行為邏輯性之探究 53
      方法 ..…………………………………………….……...... 58
      結果與討論 ………………………………………………. 61
     研究二 參與者在評估型「Wason選擇作業」上的表現 …. 79
      實驗一 ……………………………………………………. 80
      方法 …………………………………………………. 81
      結果 …………………………………….…………… 82
      討論 …………………………………………………. 83
      實驗二 …………………………………………….……… 84
      方法 …………………………………………………. 85
      結果 …………………………………………………. 87
      討論 …………………………………………………. 88
     綜合討論 …………………………………………………….. 90
     參考文獻 …………………………………………………….. 99
     附錄一 參與者誤解題意情形之訪談結果整理 …………… 107
     附錄二 研究一所使用的問卷內容 ……………………….... 109
     附錄三 研究二所使用的問卷內容 ……………………….... 118
     附錄四 從進圖書館忘了關手機談起 …………………….... 124		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0867520121en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 適應性理性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 理性爭議zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 演繹推理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 邏輯zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 雙思考歷程理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) adaptive rationalityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) rationality debateen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) deductive reasoningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) logicen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) dual process theories of reasoningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Wason selection tasken_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) normative rationalityen_US
dc.title (題名) 「規範性理性」在「Wason選擇作業」上所扮演的角色zh_TW
dc.title (題名) 從選擇歷程邏輯性與「雙思考系統理論」的角度探究zh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 徐金雲 (1998)。「條件句邏輯探究」。台中：東海大學哲學系碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 留佳莉 (1998)。「影響 Wason 選擇作業表現的非推理因素」。台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳宏道 (1997)。「Wason選擇作業中誤解題意現象之研究」。未發表。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 彭孟堯 (2002)。從認知科學的推想謬誤看邏輯的教與學。載於「兩岸邏輯教學學術會議會議論文集」(52-60頁)。台北：台灣大學哲學系。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bracewell, R. J. (1974). Interpretation factors in four card selection task. Paper presented at The Selection Task Conference, Trento, Italy.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bracewell, R. J., & Hide, S. E. (1974). The solution of an inferential problem as a function of stimulus materials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental psychology, 26, 480-488.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Braine, M. D. S., & Rumain, B. (1983). Logical reasoning. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael’s Handbook of child psychology, Vol 3: Cognitive Development. New York: John Wiley.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and captial-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7-42.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2001). Human rationality and the psychology of reasoning: Where do we go from here? British Journal of Psychology, 92, 193-216.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391-416.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wason, P. C., & Brooks, P. G. (1979). THOG: The anatomy of a problem. Psychological Research, 41, 79-90.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1975). Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition, 3, 141-154.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. London: Batsford.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wason, P. C., & Shapiro, D. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 63-71.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wilkins, M. C. (1928). The Effect of changed material on the ability to do formal syllogistic reasoning. Archives of Psychology, New York, No. 102.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Woodworth, R. S., & Sells, S. B. (1935). An atmosphere effect in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 451-460.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Oliver, L. M. (1986). Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 293-328.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). On the natural selection of reasoning theories. Cognition, 33, 285-313.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317-370.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Copi, I. M., & Burgess-Jackson, K. (1992). Informal Logic. (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillam Publishing Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Corral, A. (1999). The effects of rule clarification and attentional factors on Wason`s abstract selection task. Estudios de Psychologia, 63-64, 45-53.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cosmides, L. (1985). Deduction or Darwinian algorithms? An explanation of the “elusive” content effect on the Wason selection task. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. University microfilm 86-02206.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187-276.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and generation of culture, Part II. Case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 51-97.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cox, J. R., & Griggs, R. A. (1982). The effects of experience on performance in Wason`s selection task. Memory and Cognition, 10, 496-502.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 451-468.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: cause and consequences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T. (1992, July). The Wason selection task: An appreciation. Paper presented to the Second International Conference on Thinking, Plymouth, UK.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T. (1995). Relevance and reasoning. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 147-171). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and Human Reasoning: An Assessment of the Deduction Paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, No. 6, 978-996.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T., & Lynch, J. S. (1973). Matching bias in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 391-397.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Creating a psychology of reasoning: The contribution of Peter Wason. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 1-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, England: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, England: Psychology Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Evans, J. St. B. T., Over D. E., Manktelow (1993). Reasoning, decision making and rationality. Cognition, 49, 165-187.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Federov, V. V. (1972). Theory of optimal experiments. San Diego: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Feeney, A., & Handley, S. J. (2000). The suppression of q card selections: Evidence for deductive inference in Wason`s Selection Task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A (4), 1224-1242.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gebauer, G., & Laming, D. (1997). Rational choices in Wason’s selection task. Psychological Research, 60, 284-293.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) George, C. (1991). Facilitation in the Wason selection task with a consequent referring to an unsatisfactory outcome. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 463-472.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D. J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995): How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102:4, 684-704.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Griggs, R. A. (1995). The effects of rule clarification, decision justification, and selection instruction on Wason`s abstract selection task. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 17-39). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Griggs, R. A., & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason`s selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 407-420.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Griggs, R. A., & Jackson, S. L. (1990). Instructional effects on responses in Wason`s selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 197-204.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy. Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hardman, D. (1998). Does reasoning occur on the selection task? A comparison of relevance-based theories. Thinking and Reasoning, 4(4), 353-376.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review. 69, 366-378.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hertwig, R., Ortmann, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Deductive competence: A desert devoid of content and context. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, 102-107.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York: Basic Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Ninth Bartlett memorial lecture: Think as a skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 1-29.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1995). Inference and mental models. In S. E. Newstead, J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 115-146). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., & Legrenzi, M. S. (1972). Reasoning and sense of reality. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 395-400.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1992). Model reasoning, models, and Manktelow & Over. Cognition, 43, 173-182.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jong, P. J., Mayer B., & Hout, M. (1997). Conditional reasoning and phobic fear: evidence for a fear-confirming reasoning pattern. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 507-516.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kahneman, D. (2000). A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes (Commentary on Stanovich and West). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 23, 681-683.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430-454.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuition. Cognition, 11, 123-141.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kirby, K. N. (1994). Probabilities and utilities of fictional outcomes in Wason`s four-card selection. Cognition, 51, 1-28.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, 385-417.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Liberman, N., & Klar, Y. (1996). Hypothesis testing in Wason`s selection task: social exchange cheating detection or task understanding. Cognition, 58, 127-156.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) MacKay, D. J. C. (1992). Bayesian methods for adaptive models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Manktelow, K. I., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1979). Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or no-effect. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 477-488.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking and cognition: A theory of judgment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Margolis, H. (2000). Wason`s selection task with a reduced array. Psycoloquy, 11. Retrieved November 14, 2001, fromzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc-bin/newpsy?article=11.005zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Moshman, D., & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 4(3), 231-248zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Newstead, S. E., & Evans J. St. B. T. (Eds.). (1995). Perspectives on thinking and reasoning. Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1993). Reasoning theories and bounded rationality. In K. I. Manktelow & D. E. Over (Eds.), Rationality (pp. 31-60). London: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1995). Theories of reasoning and the computational explanation of everyday inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 121-152.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Rational explanation of the selection task. Psychological Review, 103(2), 381-391.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world. Hove, England: Psychology Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2001). The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 349-357.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oaksford, M. (2002). Predicting the results of reasoning experiments: Reply to Feeney and Handley (2000). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A(3), 793-798.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Osman, M., & Laming, D. (2001). Misinterpretation of conditional statements in Wason`s selection task. Psychological research, 65, 128-144.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Peterson. C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29-46.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Platt, R. D., & Griggs, R. A. (1993b). Facilitation in the abstract selection task: the effects of attentional and instructional factors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A(4), 591-613.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Perspective from cognitive psychology, Linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 33-58). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rips, L. J., & Marcus, S. L. (1977). Suppositions and the analysis of conditional sentences. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rips, L. J. (1990). Reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 85-116.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Roberts, M. J. & Newton, E. J. (2001). Inspection time, the change task, and the rapid-response selection task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology. 54A(4), 1031-1048.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Shafir, E. & LeBoeuf R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual review of psychology. 53, 491-517.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Shier, D. (2000). Can human rationality be defended a priori? Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 67-81.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Shiffrin R. M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998a). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 193-230.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998b). Individual difference in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Stanovich, K. E., & West R. F. (2000). Individual difference in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-726.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2003). The rationality debate as a progressive research program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 531-534.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Todd, P. M., Fiddick, L., & Krauss, S. (2000). Discussion: Ecological rationality and its contents. Thinking and Reasoning, 6(4), 375-384.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Precis of Simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and Brain Science, 23, 727-800.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Todorov, A. (1997). Another look at reasoning experiments: rationality, normative models and conversational factors. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(4), 387-417.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) Availability: heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Van Duyne, P. C. (1974). Realism and Linguistic complexity in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 65, 59-67.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Van Duyne, P. C. (1976). Necessity and contingency in reasoning. Acta Psychologica, 40, 85-101.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New Horizons in Psychology. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 273-281.zh_TW