Regression in reasoning?
Regression in reasoning?
复制标题
推理回归？
DOI：
10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01221.x
复制
发表时间：
1969
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
P. Wason
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Wason
本文研究了两类矛盾对一道结构简单但貌似困难的逻辑题纠错的影响。这项任务是从部分隐藏的材料中选择那些刺激，这些刺激是评估一般陈述的真实性或虚假性所必需的。假设矛盾是假设当主体做出与先前错误选择不一致的推断时发生的。具体的矛盾是假设发生时，主题的当前选择被证明是不一致的充分揭示的材料。在32名受试者中，有2人在最初的选择中基本正确，14人在遇到两个假设的矛盾后正确，12人在遇到一个具体的矛盾后正确，4人完全失败。结果表明，要么皮亚杰的“形式操作”理论需要修改，或者一些科目可能暂时倒退到更原始的思维模式。
This investigation is concerned with the effects of two kinds of contradiction on the correction of errors in a structurally simple but deceptively difficult logical problem. The task was to choose from partially concealed material those stimuli which were necessary to evaluate the truth or falsity of a general statement. Hypothetical contradiction is assumed to occur when the subject makes an inference which is inconsistent with a previous incorrect choice. Concrete contradiction is assumed to occur when the subject's current choice is shown to be inconsistent with the fully revealed material. Of the 32 subjects, two were substantially correct in their initial choices, 14 were correct after encountering two hypothetical contradictions, 12 were correct after encountering a concrete contradiction, and four failed altogether. The results suggest either that Piaget's theory of ‘formal operations’ requires modification, or that some of the subjects may have temporarily regressed to more primitive modes of thinking.