Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 327–330 | Cite as

Education and the selection task

  • Sherri L. Jackson
  • Richard A. Griggs
Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

The present study was concerned with the effects of education level and area of expertise on performance on the standard abstract selection task. Subjects had received bachelor’s or doctoral degrees. Contrary to some recent results reported by Hoch and Tschirgi (1985), no effect of education level was found. However, there was a significant effect for area of expertise. Subjects trained in mathematics performed better than subjects from computer science, electrical engineering, and the social sciences. An explanation in terms of the mathematics subjects’ greater likelihood of using a disconfirmation strategy and greater familiarity with the relevant propositional logic is offered.

References

  1. Bracewell, R. J., & Hidi, S. E. (1974). The solution of an inferential problem as a function of stimulus materials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 480–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Evans, J. St.B. T. (1982). The psychology of deductive reasoning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. Goodwin, R. Q., & Wason, P. C. (1972). Degrees of insight. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Griggs, R. A. (1983). The role of problem content in the selection task and THOG problem. In J. St.B. T. Evans (Ed.), Thinking and reasoning: Psychological approaches (pp. 16–43). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Griggs, R. A., & Ransdell, S. E. (1986). Scientists and the selection task. Social Studies of Science, 16, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoch, S. J., & Tschirgi, J. E. (1985). Logical knowledge and cue redundancy in deductive reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 13, 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson, S. L. (1986). The effects of area of expertise and level of education on performance on two reasoning tasks. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  8. Kern, L. H., Mirels, H. L., & Hinshaw, V. G. (1983). Scientists’ understanding of propositional logic: An experimental investigation. Social Studies of Science, 13, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lunzer, E. A., Harrison, C., & Davey, M. (1972). The four-card problem and the generality of formal reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mahoney, M. J., & Kimper, T. P.(1976). From ethics to logic: A survey of scientists. In M. J. Mahoney (Ed.), Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative (pp. 187–193). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  12. Markowitz, L. M., & Tweney, R. D. (1986). Confirmatory and disconfirmatory heuristics in mathematical reasoning. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  13. Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and disconfirmation in a simulated research environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tolbert, C. A. (1983). The confirmation bias as a Junction of level of training, hypothesis form and problem content. Unpublished master’s thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
  15. Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (1982). Rationality and disconfirmation: Further evidence. Social Studies of Science, 12, 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135–151). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sherri L. Jackson
    • 1
  • Richard A. Griggs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of FloridaGainesville

Personalised recommendations