The Psychological Record

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 231–242 | Cite as

Training Overcomes Reasoning Schema Effects and Promotes Transfer

  • Pamela I. AnsburgEmail author
  • Leeann Shields


Participants underwent different kinds of training on the permission type of Wason’s Four-Card problem to determine whether transfer of general solution principles would occur to the arbitrary type of Wason’s Four-Card problem. There were four training conditions: (a) practice, (b) practice with feedback, (c) problem comparison only, and (d) problem comparison with feedback. Those participants who performed problem comparison on permission problems during practice solved more arbitrary problems during testing than did those participants who did not perform problem comparison. These findings suggest that through problem comparison participants learned how to apply general rules of logic from practice.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ANSBURG, P. I., & DOMINOWSKI, R. L. (2000). Promoting insightful problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 30–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CHENG, P. W., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CUMMINS, D. D. (1992). Role of analogical reasoning in the induction of problem categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 1103–1124.Google Scholar
  4. DIESTLER, S. (1994). Becoming a critical thinker. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. EVANS, J. St. B. T. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EVANS, J. St. B. T., & OVER, D. E. (1996). Rationality in the selection task: Epistemic utility versus uncertainty reduction. Psychological Review, 103, 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EVANS, J. St. B. T., OVER, D. E., & MANKTELOW, K. I. (1993). Reasoning, decision making and rationality. Cognition, 49, 165–187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. GICK, M. L, & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GRIGGS, R. A., & COX, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason’s selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GRIGGS, R. A., & COX, J. R. (1993). Permission schemas and the selection task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. HALPERN, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. JOHNSON-LAIRD, P. N., & BYRNE, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. KLACZYNSKI, P. A. (1993). Reasoning schema effects on adolescent rule acquisition and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 679–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. KLACZYNSKI, P. A., GELFAND, H., & REESE, H. W. (1989). Transfer of conditional reasoning: Effects of explanations and initial problem types. Memory and Cognition, 17, 208–220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. MANKTELOW, K. (1999). Reasoning and thinking. East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  16. OAKSFORD, M., & CHATER, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. PERKINS, D. N., & SALOMON, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational Researcher, 18, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. PLATT, R. D., & GRIGGS, R. A. (1993). Facilitation in the abstract selection task: The effects of attentional and instructional factors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. RUGGIERO, V. R. (1995). The art of thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  20. SÁ, W. C., WEST, R. F., & STANOVICH, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SMITH, F. (1990). To think. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. STANOVICH, K. E., & WEST, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. STERNBERG, R. J., & FRENSCH, P. A. (1993). Mechanisms for transfer. In D. K. DETTERMAN & R. J. Suternberg (Eds.)? Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. New Jersey: AblGoogle Scholar
  24. ZECHMEISTER, E., & JOHNSON, J. (1992). Critical thinking: A functional approach. Pacific Grove, Ca: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMetropolitan State College of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Slippery Rock University of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations