DOMAIN-SPECIFIC REASONING - SOCIAL CONTRACTS, CHEATING, AND PERSPECTIVE CHANGE
DOMAIN-SPECIFIC REASONING - SOCIAL CONTRACTS, CHEATING, AND PERSPECTIVE CHANGE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0010-0277(92)90060-u
复制
发表时间：
1992-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
HUG, K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
GIGERENZER, G;HUG, K
什么是人类理性：是体现与内容无关的形式理论的推理过程，如命题逻辑，还是为解决重要的适应性问题而精心设计的推理过程？人类推理的大多数理论都是基于内容独立的形式理性，而适应性推理，无论是生态的还是进化的，都很少被探索。我们使用瓦森选择任务来阐述和检验一种进化的方法--科斯米德斯()的社会契约理论。在第一部分中，我们将“社会契约”的理论概念与“作弊检测算法”的概念区分开来。我们证明，一项规则被视为一种社会契约--或者像Cheng和Holyoak(1985)提出的有条件的许可或义务--不足以引起Cosmides的惊人结果，我们重复了这一结果。关键问题不是语义(规则的含义)，而是实用：一个人是否被引诱到可能被欺骗的一方的角度。在第二部分中，我们区分了具有双边和单边欺骗选项的社会契约。具有双边作弊选择的合同的视角变化将P&NOT-Q反应转变为NOT-P&Q反应。研究结果有力地支持了社会契约理论、矛盾可用性理论，而缺乏视角和作弊检测等语用概念的语用推理图式理论无法解释这一结果。
What counts as human rationality: reasoning processes that embody content-independent formal theories, such as propositional logic, or reasoning processes that are well designed for solving important adaptive problems? Most theories of human reasoning have been based on content-independent formal rationality, whereas adaptive reasoning, ecological or evolutionary, has been little explored. We elaborate and test an evolutionary approach, Cosmides' (1989) social contract theory, using the Wason selection task. In the first part, we disentangle the theoretical concept of a "social contract" from that of a "cheater-detection algorithm". We demonstrate that the fact that a rule is perceived as a social contract - or a conditional permission or obligation, as Cheng and Holyoak (1985) proposed - is not sufficient to elicit Cosmides' striking results, which we replicated. The crucial issue is not semantic (the meaning of the rule), but pragmatic: whether a person is cued into the perspective of a party who can be cheated. In the second part, we distinguish between social contracts with bilateral and unilateral cheating options. Perspective change in contracts with bilateral cheating options turns P & not-Q responses into not-P & Q responses. The results strongly support social contract theory, contradict availability theory, and cannot be accounted for by pragmatic reasoning schema theory, which lacks the pragmatic concepts of perspectives and cheating detection.