Linguistic, Pragmatic and Evolutionary Factors in Wason Selection Task

Authors: Olimpia Matarazzo, Fabrizio Ferrara

Abstract:

In two studies we tested the hypothesis that the appropriate linguistic formulation of a deontic rule – i.e. the formulation which clarifies the monadic nature of deontic operators - should produce more correct responses than the conditional formulation in Wason selection task. We tested this assumption by presenting a prescription rule and a prohibition rule in conditional vs. proper deontic formulation. We contrasted this hypothesis with two other hypotheses derived from social contract theory and relevance theory. According to the first theory, a deontic rule expressed in terms of cost-benefit should elicit a cheater detection module, sensible to mental states attributions and thus able to discriminate intentional rule violations from accidental rule violations. We tested this prevision by distinguishing the two types of violations. According to relevance theory, performance in selection task should improve by increasing cognitive effect and decreasing cognitive effort. We tested this prevision by focusing experimental instructions on the rule vs. the action covered by the rule. In study 1, in which 480 undergraduates participated, we tested these predictions through a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 (type of the rule x rule formulation x type of violation x experimental instructions) between-subjects design. In study 2 – carried out by means of a 2 x 2 (rule formulation x type of violation) between-subjects design - we retested the hypothesis of rule formulation vs. the cheaterdetection hypothesis through a new version of selection task in which intentional vs. accidental rule violations were better discriminated. 240 undergraduates participated in this study. Results corroborate our hypothesis and challenge the contrasting assumptions. However, they show that the conditional formulation of deontic rules produces a lower performance than what is reported in literature.

Keywords: Deontic reasoning; Evolutionary, linguistic, logical, pragmatic factors; Wason selection task

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1059631

References:

[1] P. C. Wason, "Reasoning." in New horizons in psychology, B. Foss, Ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966, pp. 135-151.
[2] P. C. Wason, "Reasoning about a rule," Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp 273-281, 1968.
[3] J. St. B. T. Evans, "Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years ?," Thinking and Reasonig, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45-110, 1998.
[4] J. St. B. T. Evans, "Logic and Human Reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 128, no. 6, pp. 978- 996, 2002.
[5] D. Cummins Della Rosa, "Evidence for the innateness of deontic reasoning," Mind & Language, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 160-190, 1996.
[6] K. I. Manktelow and J. St. B. T. Evans, "Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or not-effect ?," British Journal of Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 477-488, 1979.
[7] P. C. Wason and D. Shapiro, "Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem," Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 23 pp. 63-71, 1971.
[8] R. A. Griggs and J. R. Cox, "The elusive thematicmaterials effect in Wason's selection task," British Journal of Psychology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 407-420, 1982.
[9] P. N. Johnson-Laird, P. Legrenzi, and M. S. Legrenzi, "Reasoning and a sense of reality," British Journal of Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 395-400, 1972.
[10] I. A. Noveck, "To what extent do pragmatic reasoning schemas affect performance on Wason-s selection task ?," The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 463-489, 1996.
[11] N. Liberman and Y. Klar, "Hypothesis testing in Wason-s selection task: Social exchange cheating detection or task understanding," Cognition, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 127-156, 1996.
[12] P. W. Cheng and K.J. Holyoak, "Pragmatic reasoning schemas," Cognitive Psychology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 391-416, 1985.
[13] K. J. Mantkelow and D. E. Over, "Deontic Thought and the selection task," In Lines of thought: Reflections on the psychology of thinking, K. J. Gilhooly, M. Keane, R. Logie, and G. Erdos, Eds. Chichester: Wiley, 1990.
[14] L. Cosmides, "The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason Selection Task," Cognition, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 187-276, 1989.
[15] L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, "Neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange," in Evolutionary Psychology Handbook, D. M. Buss, Ed. New York: Wiley, 2005, pp. 584-627.
[16] L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, "Cognitive adaptations for social exchange," in The adapted mind, J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby, Eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 168- 228.
[17] L. Fiddick, "Domains of deontic reasoning: Resolving the discrepancy between the cognitive and moral reasoning literatures," The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 447-474, 2004.
[18] M. Nu├▒ez and P. Harris, "Psychological and deontic concepts: Separate domains or intimate connection ?," Mind & Language, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 153-170, 1998.
[19] D. Sperber, D. Cara, and V. Girotto, "Relevance theory explains selection task," Cognition, vol. 57, no.1, pp. 31-95, 1995.
[20] V. Girotto, M. Kemmelmeier, D. Sperber, J. van der Henst, "Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task," Cognition, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. B69-B76, 2001.
[21] L. Fiddick, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, "No interpretation without representation: The role of domain-specific representations and inferences in the Wason selection task," Cognition, vol.. 77, no.1, pp. 1-79, 2000.
[22] D. Sperber and V. Girotto, "Use or misuse of the selection task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides, and Tooby," Cognition, vol. 85, no.3, pp. 277-290, 2002.
[23] E. Carlisle and E. Shafir, "Questioning the cheater-detection hypothesis: new studies with the selection task," Thinking & Reasoning vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 97-122, 2005.
[24] I. A. Noveck, H. Mercier, and J.-B. Van Der Henst, "To what extent do social contracts affect performance on Wason-s Selection Task," in Against extreme domain specificity, M. Roberts, Ed. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2007. Available:http://l2c2.isc.cnrs.fr/publications/files/Noveck-Mercier- VDHenst.pdf)
[25] J. Fodor, (2000). The mind doesn-t work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
[26] D. J. Buller, "Evolutionary psychology: The emperor-s new paradigm," Trends in Cognitive Science, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 277- 283, 2005.
[27] H. P. Grice, (1975). "Logic and conversation," in Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, P. Cole, J. Morgan, Eds. New York: Academic Press, 1975, pp. 41-58.