Skip to main content

Error Rates and Uncertainty Reduction in Rule Discovery


Three new versions of Wason’s 2-4-6 rule discovery task incorporating error rates or feedback of uncertainty reduction, inspired by the error-statistical account in philosophy of science, were employed. In experiments 1 and 2, participants were instructed that some experimenter feedback would be erroneous (control was original 2-4-6 without error). The results showed that performance was impaired when there was probabilistic error. In experiment 3, participants were given uncertainty reduction feedback as they generated different number triples and the negative effects of probabilistic error were not observed. These findings are informative not only about rule discovery tasks in general but also about contexts of inference under uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9


  1. Bandyopadhyay, P.S., and M.R. Forster. 2011. Handbook of philosophy of science volume 7: Philosophy of statistics. Elsevier.

  2. Carruthers, P., S. Stich, and M. Siegal. 2002. The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Caverni, J.P., S. Rossi, and J.L. Péris. 2005. How to defocus in hypothesis testing: Manipulating the status of the initial triple in the 2-4-6 problem. In The shape of reason, ed. V. Girotto and P.N. Johnson-Laird. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Evans, J.St.B.T. 2003. In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (10): 454–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Evans, J.St.B.T. 2014. Reasoning, biases and dual processes: The lasting impact of Wason (1960). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Feist, G.J. 2006. The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fritz, C.O., P.E. Morris, and J.J. Richler. 2012. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141 (1): 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gorman, M.E. 1986. How the possibility of error affects falsification on a task that models scientific problem solving. British Journal of Psychology 77: 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gorman, M.E. 1989. Error, falsification, and scientific inference: An experimental investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 41A: 385–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Holyoak, K.J., and R.G. Morrison. 2012. The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Klayman, J., and Y.-w. Ha. 1987. Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review 94 (2): 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, 91–196. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayo, D. 1996. Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Mayo, D. 2005. Evidence as passing severe tests: Highly probable versus highly probed hypotheses. In Scientific evidence: Philosophical theories & applications, ed. P. Achinstein, 95–127. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mayo, D., and A. Spanos. 2011. Error statistics. In The handbook of philosophy of science, volume7: Philosophy of statistics, ed. Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay and Malcolm Forster. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Penner, D.E., and D. Klahr. 1996. When to trust the data: Further investigations of system error in a scientific reasoning task. Memory and Cognition 24: 655–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sarkar, S., and J. Pfeifer. 2005. Philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sternberg, R.J., and T. Ben-Zeev. 2001. Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Taper, M., and S. Lele. 2004. The nature of scientific evidence: Statistical, philosophical and empirical considerations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Van der Henst, J.B., S. Rossi, and W. Schroyens. 2002. When participants are not misled they are not so bad after all: A pragmatic analysis of a rule discovery task. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the cognitive science society, ed. W.D. Gray and C. Shunn, 902–907. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wason, P.C. 1960. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12: 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to thank Rabianur Balci for assistance in the coding and analysis of part of the data.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Emrah Aktunc.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aktunc, M., Hazar, C. & Baytimur, E. Error Rates and Uncertainty Reduction in Rule Discovery. Rev.Phil.Psych. 12, 435–452 (2021).

Download citation