cosmides_1985_chap2

7/29/2019 cosmides_1985_chap2

1/49

CHAPTER 2A r ev ie w of t h e l i t e r a t u r e on t h e " e l us i ve " c o n t e n t e f f e c t

on t he Wason se l ec t i on t as k

When con ten t e f f ec t s a r e found, the hypoth es is th a t theywere produced by content-dependent co gn it iv e pro cess es should bee n te r t a i ne d . The e x te ns ive l i t e r a t u r e on the Wason s e l e c t io nt a s k i s r e p l e t e w i th r e p o r t s of c o nt e nt e f f e c t s . I f c o n te n t-dependent in f e rence p rocedures ex is t , t h i s l i t e r a t u r e i s apromis ing p l ace t o look f o r them.

Attempts t o p r ed ic t and exp l a in con ten t e f fe c t s on th e Wasons e l e c t i o n t a s k i n te rm s of " d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u b j e c t s 1 e x pe r ie n ce "wi th t he d i f f e r e n t c on ten t domains t e s t e d ha ve c re a te d a ho rne t ' sn e s t o f a p p ar e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s . The u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t yand un re p l i c a b i l i ty of the c on te n t e f f e c t on the Wason s e le c t i ont a s k i s so pronounced that Peter Wason has called it a " c r i s i s "(p er so na l communication) and Gr ig gs and Cox (1982) have dubbedt h e e f f e c t " el us iv e. "

Because the e xp la nat ion of t h i s e l u s iv i t y i s t h e s u b j e c t ofmy t h e s i s , t h i s chap te r w i l l e x pl o r e t h e s e r e s u l t s i n somed e t a i l , one c o n t en t a r e a a t a t ime . I f domain sp ec i f i c reason ingp roc e s s e s a re invo lve d, then the da ta s hould re s o lve in topa t te rns when it i s cat ego ri zed by conten t domain per s e, but notwhen it i s c a te go r i z e d by fa c t o r s c o r r e la t e d wi th c on te n t , l i k e" f a m i l i a r i t y " o r " r e al i sm . " Five major content ar ea s have beene x pl o re d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e : t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , f oo d, s c ho o l, a nd" s o c i a l c o n t r a c t s . "

The d iscuss ion of pub l ished exp lana t ions a t tempt ing t o


2/49

a c c o u n t f o r t h e s e r e s u l t s i s d e f e r r e d t o t h e n ex t c h a pt e r , s ot h ey c an be d i s c u s s e d i n l i g h t of a l l t h e r e p o r t e d d a t a .

2 .1 The Transportation Problem

The "Transportation Problem", developed by Wason & Shapiro(1971) , has been used i n more exper iments te s t i ng f o r an e f f ec tof themat ic con ten t i n th e Wason se l ec t i on ta sk t han any o therth e ma t ic ru le . I t i s a c o n d i t i on a l r u l e l i n k i n g a p l a ce t o ameans of t ra ns po rt a t io n, fo r example , "If I go t o Boston, then Itake the subway. " Res ear cher s always use p la ces and means oft r a n s po r t a t io n t h a t a r e l o c a l f o r and f a mi l i a r t o t h e i r s u b j ec tpopu lat ion. There a r e nine experiments comparing performance ont he t ra ns po rt a t io n problem t o performance on an abs t r ac t problem.Two found su bs t an t i a l content ef f ec t s , two found weak conte nte f f e c t s , and f i v e found no c on te nt e f f e c t s a t a l l .

Wason & Shapiro, 1971The f i r s t demonstra t ion of a content e f f e c t was by Wason &

Shapiro (1971) . They gave 16 su b je c ts a se le c t ion ta sk us ing th er u l e "Every t ime I go t o Manchester I t r a v e l by c a r" ( th e mat icg ro u p ) , and 16 su b j e c t s a se l e c t io n t a s k u s in g th e r u l e "Everyc ar d which h as a vowel on one s i d e ha s an even number on t h eo th er s i de n (a bs t r ac t g roup).* Dest i na t ions and means oft r a n s p o r t a t i o n were r o t a t e d i n t h e t h em a ti c gr ou p t o a vo id t h ep o s s i b i l i t y of an e f f e c t due t o pr ec on ce pt i on s a bo ut t h e r e l a t i o nbetween p ar t i cu l a r de st in at io ns and means of t ra nsp or t . Sixty-two

* Only Wason & Sh ap ir ol s ab s t r ac t problem used th e vowel-evennumber r u le . Abst ra c t p roblems i n the o the r s t ud ie s l in kedsp e c i f i c l e t t e r s and numbers, e .g., " I f th e r e i s an ' A 1 on ones i d e of a c a rd , th en th e re i s a ' 3 ' on th e o the r s id e . "


3/49

p e r c e n t o f t h e t h e m a t i c g ro up ga ve t h e l o g i c a l l y c o r r e c t ,f a l s i f y i n g a ns we r, I P & no t -Q 1 , w hereas on ly 12% o f t he ab s t r a c tg roup gave t h i s answ er (ph i = .52) .

Bracewel l & Hidi , 1974I n 1974, Bracewell & Hidi and Gi lhooly & F al co ne r t r i e d t o

re p l i c a t e Wason & Shap iro, 1971. Thei r experiments were desig nedt o t e a s e a p a r t t h e r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b ut i o n t o s u c ce ss on t h es e l e c t i o n t a s k o f c o n c r e te te rm s ve r s us c o n c r e t e r e l a t i o n s .Here I w i l l o nl y d i s c us s t h e c o n d i ti o ns t h a t a r e d i r e c t l ycomparable t o Wason & S h a p i r o m s h e m at ic a nd a b s t r a c t g r ou ps ,b ec au se e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of a c o nt e nt e f f e c t i st h e o r e t i c a l l y p r i o r t o a s k i n g what c a u se s it.*

Not ing t h a t t he most common se l ec t i on t a sk e r r o r i s t oi n c o r r e c t l y s e l e c t t h e c a r d co rr es po nd in g t o t h e Q term,Bracewel l & Hidi wondered i f su b j ec t s " spend more t ime ana l ys i ngt h e f i r s t s e t of t er m s t o t h e d e tr i me n t o f t h e s ec ond s e t . " Theyt e s t e d t h i s by f r a mi ng t h e i r t h em a t ic an d a b s t r a c t p ro bl em s i ntwo d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c f o r ma t s: "Every t im e P, Q" and "Q ev er ytim e P" (e.g., "Every tim e I go t o Ot tawa I t r a v e l by c a r " an d " It r av e l by ca r eve ry ti m e I go t o Ot tawa. " ) The l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r eof th es e two problems i s i d en t i ca l , however t he Q term comesf i r s t i n t h e "Q e ve ry ti me P" f or ma t. T h e ir r e s u l t s a r e p i c tu r e di n T a b l e 2.1.

The "Every time.. . l i n g u i s t i c fo rmat (a l s o used by Wason &Shap i ro ) suc ces s fu l l y r e p l i ca t ed Wason & S h a p i r o m s i n d i ng s : 9ou t o f 12 sub je c t s (75%) answered 'P & n ot -Q 1 i n r e sp o ns e t o t h et h em a ti c r u l e v e r s u s 1 ou t of 12 ( 8 % ) f o r t h e a b s t r a c t r u l e

* The r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n q u e s t i on w i l l be cons i de red i n C hap t er 3.25


4/49

Table 2 .1 Re su l t s of Bracewel l & Hidi , 1974

t h em a ti c a b s t r a c t T o t a l sEvery t ime P, Q: 9 1 I 10Q every t ime P: 2 1 I 3......................................T o t a l s : 11 2

Number of s u b j e c t s choos ing 'P & not-0' ; n=12 per c e l l .( p h i = .68) . However, th e re was no themat ic con tent e f f e c t fo rt h e "Q e v e ry t i m e P" p h r as i n g ; 2 o u t of 1 2 s u b j e c t s i n t h et h e m a ti c gr ou p f a l s i f i e d ( 17 %), compared t o 1 o u t o f 1 2 ( 8 % ) i nt h e a b s t r a c t g ro up . T he re i s no re as on t o b e l ie v e t h a t t h i ssecond phras ing i s a n u n n a t ur a l one*; i n f a c t , t h i s i s t h ephras ing which Bracewel l & Hidi had hoped would enhance logicalpe rf o rmance by f ocus i ng a t t en t i on on t h e Q term.

Thus, a s i mp l e change i n l i n g u i s t i c f o r ma t compl e te l y e r a s edt h e c on t en t e f f e c t ,

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Br ac ew e ll & H i d i ' s d a t a i s f u r t h e rc om pl ic at ed by t h e f a c t t h a t t he y e x p l i c i t l y t o l d t h e i r s u b j e c t st h a t t h e c o n d i t i o na l i s n o t " r e ve r s i bl e . " T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i su np re ce de nt ed i n s e l e c t i o n t a s k r e s e ar c h ; s o a r e i t s appa r en te f f e c t s . The most common resp onse t o a b s t ra c t problems i su s u a l l y ' P & Q ' . Y e t only 1 o u t o f t h e 24 s u b j e c t s i n B ra c ew e ll& H i d i ' s two a b s t r a c t c o n d i t i o n s ga ve t h i s r es p on s e, and no onegave it i n e i t h e r o f t h e t h e ma t ic c o n d i ti o n s .

T h is i n s t r u c t i o n i s so se r i ou s a con ound t h a t some

* I would guess t h a t p r agmat i c f a c t o r s de t e r mine whi ch ph r asewould come f i r s t i n o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a ti o n -- whether t he speakerw is he d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t o p i c o f t h e s e n t en c e i s g o in g t oManchester ("Every t ime I go t o M anches te r. .. ") o r t r a ve l i ng byc a r ( " I t r a v e l by c a r. . . ") .


5/49

re s e a rc he rs a r e he s i t a n t t o c ount Brac ewel l & Hi di 1s "Every t ime"condi t i on a s a r ep l i ca t i on of Wason & Shapiro (Manktelow, 1979;Griggs & Cox, 1982; Gr ig gs, 1 98 3) . I b e l i e v e i t may havein t ro duced demand ch ar ac te r i s t ic s of th e fo l lowing kind.

When stumped by a problem, pe op le sometimes as k "w ha t' s t h et r i c k ? " -- it i s a re que s t fo r in s ig h t i n t o th e problem.However, I have never heard anyone stumped by a problem ask,"what a r e th e t r i cks ?" I n o the r words, people usua l ly assumet h a t a thought problem has one "t r i ck" , not two. But sol vi ng th ese le c t io n tas k invo lves two " t r ick s" : accord ing t o Wason &Johnson-Laird (1972), ub je ct s have not achieved "completei n s i g h t " u n l e s s t he y r e a l i z e 1 ) t h a t t he Q c a r d i s i r r e l e v a n t ,and 2) t ha t t he no t-Q c a rd i s re le va nt . When I was conductingp i l o t e xpe r ime nts , s ub j e c t s who had f in i s h e d th e t a s k f re que n t lyasked m e i f the " t r i c k" was re a l i z i ng th a t one s hould omi t Q.And, i n f a c t , t h e second most common re sp ons e on th e s e l e c t i o nt a s k i s 'P' a lone, omi t t ing th e Q card.

I f you be li ev e you have found t h e " tr ic k" , why look f o r as ec on d o ne ? T e l l i n g s u b j e c t s t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n a l i s "notr e v e r s i b l e " may be gi vi ng away ha l f t h e game. When t h e meaningof ' 'not revers ible" i s c l e a r , t h i s i n s t ru c t i on i s e q u i v a l e n t t ot e l l i n g t hem t o om it t h e Q c a rd . The t a s k o f f in d ing " the t r i c k nr emai ns .

This cou ld exp la in why sub je c ts found the "no t-Q t r i ck " i nthe "Every time P, Q" fo rma t , bu t no t i n the "Q every t ime P nfo rmat . When the lo g i c a l ope ra to r th a t de f ine s the c ond i t i ona li s a t th e be ginning o f the s e n tenc e , a s i n "Every time I go t oOttawa I t r a v e l by car " , th e meaning of "rever se" i s


6/49

s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . S u b j e c t s h av e v i r t u a l l y been t o l d t o o mi t Q , sot h e y c o n t in u e t o s e a rc h f o r t h e p ro bl em 's t r i c k -- choosing not-Q-- and may eve nt ua ll y fi n d it. But th e meaning of "r ev er se n i sf a r more ambiguous when th e l o g i c a l ope rat or i s i n t h e c e n t e r ofth e sent ence . What i s t he " reve r se" o f "I t r a v e l by c a r e v e r ytime I go t o Ot tawan? I s it "Every time I go t o Ot tawa I t r a v e lby c ar n or i s it "I go t o Ottawa every time I t r av e l by car "?Figu r ing t h i s ou t may have been cha l len ging enough t o count a s" t h e t r i c k n f o r s u b j e c t s s o l v i n g problems i n t h e ' Q every t i m e P1format . Te l l in g them the co ndi t io nal was "not r ev er s i b l e" wasenough o f a c lu e t o a llow most o f them to f in a l l y f i gu re ou t th a tthey were supposed t o omit Q , b u t h av in g r e a l i z e d t h a t , t h eys t op p ed t h e i r s e a r c h -- they thought they had found th e " t r i ck . "

I f w e l ea ve a s id e t h i s m e thodo log ica l ob je c t ion , B racewel l &H id i ' s experim ent s can be though t of a s two sepa ra t e a t t em pts t orepl ica te Wason & Shap i ro : one a success , t he o the r a f a i lu re .

Gilhooly & Falconer, 1974The desi gn of Gilhoo ly & Falconer was s i mi la r t o Bracewel l &

Hid i , except the y used only th e "Every time P , Q n l i n g u i s t i cfor mat , and many more su b j e c t s (n=50 per g rou p).

Gi lhooly & F a l c o n e r ' s t h e ma t i c g ro up d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l yb e t t e r t h a n t h e i r a b s t r a c t g ro up : 22% v. 6% chose 'P & not-Q1.*However, t he success r a t e f o r the them at i c cond i t ion was qu i t elow: 22%, a s compared t o 6 2% f o r Wason & Shap iro and 75% fo r

- - - - -~* Gilhooly & Falconer were puzzled t h a t t he e r r or responses whichJohnson-Laird & Wason (1970) c l a s s i fy a s "pa r t i a l i n s ig h t " ('P,Q, and n o t- Q ' ) d i d n o t h av e t h e same d i s t r i b u t i o n a s t h e"comple te in s i gh t " ( IP & no t-Q ') r e sponses . I f one g ra n t s the i ra ssum pt ion th a t t hese two scores express p rogress ive ly g rea te rd e g re e s of i n s i g h t i n t o t h e l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e p ro ble m, andth e r e f o r e lumps them toge the r , t he con ten t e f f e c t d i sappea r s (26% v. 1


7/49

Bracewell & Hi d i ' s be s t g roup . The e f fe c t s i z e , ph i = .23, forGilhooly & Falconer i s c l o s e r t o t h e " e f f e c t " s i z e of .13 f o rBracewell & H i d i ' s no e f f e c t c o n d it i o n th a n i t i s t o t h e p h i of

f o r Wason & Shapiro . I t i s not unheard of fo r 22% of a s ub je ctpopula t ion t o g et t he &s tr ack problem cor re ct ; i n a number of mye xpe r ime nts , more tha n 22% of s ub j e c t s f a l s i f i e d on th e a b s t r a c tproblem (s ee Chapter 6). Furthermore, because Gilho oly &Fa lc one r ' s s ample s i z e i s th re e t imes la rg er than e i th e r Wason &Shapiro ' s o r Bracewel l & Hid i ' s , one might e xpe c t th e i r f igu re st o be somewhat l e s s s u b j e c t t o T ype 1 e r r o r s .

Thus, i f one c oun t s any fa c i l i t a t i on wi th thema t ic c on te n t ,however smal l , a s a "content ef f ec t " , then Gilhooly & Falconercounts a s a re p l ic a t io n of Wason & Sha pir o. However, i f by"conten t e f fe c t " one means th a t a major i ty of sub je c ts g i ve al o g i c a l l y c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e w i t h a the ma tic ru l e , the n Gi lhoo ly &Falcone r have fa i l e d t o r e p l i c a t e Wason & Shapiro. A s w i l l bed i s c us s e d i n the ne x t c ha p te r , the t he o re t i c a l c l aim being madede te rmine s which de f i n i t i on i s a pp rop r ia te .

Po l la rd , 1981In a ve ry c l ose re p l ic a t io n of Wason & S ha pi ro 's i n i t i a l

s tudy , Po l la rd (1981) found a mi ld conten t e f f ec t : 4 out of 12s ub j e c t s (33%) i n the the ma t ic c ond i t ion gave the l og i c a l lyc o r re c t a n swer , whe re as none of the 12 s ub je c t s i n th e a b s t ra c tcondi t i on gave t h i s answer (ph i = . 4 5 ) .

I t i s wor th no t ing t ha t g ive n the pe rc e n tage d i f fe re nc ebetween th e two g roups (33%) , z e ro c o r r e c t i n the a bs t r a c tc ond i t ion i s the only outcome th a t c ou ld y ie ld a s ig n i f i c a n tre s u l t . I f the same pe rc en t d i f fe r e nc e i s main ta ined , bu t ju s t

29


8/49

one s u b j e c t i n t h e a b s t r a c t c o n d i t i o n had an swe red c o r r e c t l y(hence 1 ou t o f 12 i n th e ab s t r a c t g roup , compared t o 5 ou t of 12i n t h e t h e ma t i c g ro up ) , the d i f fe re nc e between t he two cond i t io nswould be ins igni f icant ( p < .07, Fisher I s Exact) . GivenP o l l a r d ' s s m al l s am pl e s i z e s , s uc h a p r e c a r i o u s r e s u l t s h ou l d bei n t e r p r e t e d wi t h c a ut i on .

Thi s, so f a r , has been th e good (and lukewarm) news f o r t hecon ten t e f f e c t with a t r an sp or ta t i on problem. Now, th e bad news.

Manktelow & Evans, 1979In 1979, Manktelow & Evans conducted an experiment

(Experiment 5) t h a t du pl ic at ed Wason & Shapiro (1971) i n everyrespe c t excep t one : they used an " I f- then" l i n g u i s t i c fo rmati n s t e a d of t h e "Every time" fo rmat used by Wason & Shap i ro(1971), Bracewell & Hidi (1974) , Gilhooly & Falconer (1974) , andPol l a r d (1981) . Per fo rm ance fo r t he them at i c and ab s t r a c t g roupsw as iden t i ca l .

Brown, Keats, Keats, & Seggie, 1980Brown, Keats, Keats, & S eg gi e (1980) a l s o t r i e d t o r e p l i c a t e

Wason & Shap iro, 1971, usi ng 24 Au st ra li an and 24 Malaysianu n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . L i k e Wason & S ha pi ro , t h e i r t r a n s p o r t a t i o nproblem used an "Every t ime" l i n g u i s t i c format . Thei r a bs t r ac tproblem used shapes and le t t e r s : "Every card wi th a b lackt r i a n g l e on one s i d e h a s a Y on th e othe r s id e." For Malaysians u b j e c t s , t h e s e l e c t i o n t a s k was t r a n s l a t e d i n t o Bahasa Ma la ys ia ,t h e i r na t i on al language . For both problems, sub je c t s were to ldt h a t t h e v a r i a b l e s were s t r i c t l y b in ar y ( t r a v e l i s only by car ora i r p l a n e , t r i p s a r e o nl y t o S in ga po re o r P enang) , thus reducingth e a r ra y of pos s ib le combina t ions of va lues from an in f i n i t e se t


9/49

t o fou r. Unlike oth er tra ns po rt a t io n problem experiments , Browne t a l . d i d n o t r o t a t e d e s t i n a t i o n s a nd means of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .Half th e Aust ra l ian s and hal f th e Malaysians were given th et ranspor ta t ion prob lem; t h e remaining su bj ec ts were given thea b s t r a c t problem. Brown e t a l . found no enhancement of lo g i c a lperformance wi th thema tic cont ent . None of t he Malaysiansub jec ts answered e i t he r p roblem corr ec t ly , one Aus t ra l iananswered t h e a bs t r ac t problem cor re ct ly , and two answered t h ethemat i c p roblem corr ec t ly ( t he be tween-cul tu res fa c t o r was no ts i g n i f i c a n t ) .

Yachanin & Tweney, 1982Yachanin & Tweney (1982) looked i n va in f o r a the mat ic

c o n t en t e f f e c t i n a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t c on t en t a r e a s . Evans &Lynch (1973) argued t h a t performance on se le ct io n ta sk s witha b s t r a c t r u l e s i s guided by a "matching bi as" : a tendency t ochoose ca r ds th a t match va lues mentioned i n th e ru le , rega rd l essof t h e i r l o g i c a l s t a t u s ( i . e . , re gar dl ess of whether t hep r o p os i t i o ns i n t h e r u l e a r e a f f i r m a t i v e o r n e g a t i v e) . T h is canonly be te s t e d by sy s te mat ic al ly negating components of a rul e .Thus, g iven the r u l e " I f not-A t hen not-3", s ub j ec t s would chooset h e "A" and "3" c a rds bec ause the y a r e d i r e c t l y men tioned i n theru le . By coinci dence, choosing t he "3" c a r d i s " l o g i c a l l y "c o r re c t be c a us e i t repr esen t s a f a l s e consequent (no t -Q) , andchoos ing the "A" c a r d i s l o g i c a l l y i n c o r r e c t b e ca us e itrepr esen ts a f a l s e an teceden t (no t -P) . The matching b i as i sconsider ed a non-logical response bia s because i t i s b li nd t o t h elo g i c a l s t ru c t u r e of the problem.

Yachanin & Tweney a rgued t h a t i f themat ic con ten t t ru ly


10/49

f a c i l i t a t e s l o g i c a l re as on in g, t hen it s hou ld "p ro te c t " s ub je c t sfrom matching bi as . Hence, they used fo ur forms of each "If -the n" ru le : 1) af fi rm at iv e antecedent and consequent (AA ) , 2 )negative antecedent and consequent ( N N ) , 3 ) a f f i r m a t i v eantecede nt and neg ati ve consequent (AN) , 4) nega t ive anteceden tand a f f i r ma t i ve consequent (NA) . Subj ects were te s t e d on two ofe ac h of the s e r u l e fo rms (a to t a l of e igh t prob le ms per s ub je c t ) .A s u b j e c t ' s e i g h t pr obl ems were e i t h e r a l l t h em a ti c o r a l lab s t r ac t (n=40 per group) . Yachanin & Tweney found no differencei n performance be tween t he i r themat ic g roup and t h e i r ab s t ra c tg roup fo r a ny of the r u l e forms ( t r a ns p o r t a t io n : 13%, a bs t r a c t :1 1% ) .They di d f i nd evidence f o r both matching bi as and av e r i f i c a t i o n s t r a t e g y i n b ot h gr ou ps .

One could argue that t h i s r e s u l t i s un in te re s t ing be c a us et h e r e i s evid ence (revi ewed i n Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972) t h a tne ga t ive s a r e d i f f i c u l t t o under s t a nd , hence s ub je c t s s imp lybecame conused i n t h i s experiment. There a r e two problems witht h i s c r i t i ci s m . The f i r s t i s th eo re t ic a l : Many expl anat ion s ofwhy th er e should be a themat ic content e f f e c t ar e based on thei d e a t h a t , by v i r t u e of t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y , i m a g ea b i l i t y,coherence , e tc . , themat ic ru l es make confus ing s ta teme nts eas i e rt o unders tand. Thus, one would s t i l l e xp ec t a r e l a t i v eenhancement f or themat ic r ul e s with s im ple scope nega tiv ecomponents when compared t o ab s t r a c t r ul es with th e sames t ru c t u r e of ne ga t ion, e ve n if performance ~ n .hese thematicr u l e s i s m L s h i a h a s - n - - a f f i r m a t i v e - Thes ec ond prob lem wi th t h i s c r i t i c i s m i s empirical: Even when onec o n s i d e r s on l y a f f i r m a t i v e (AA ) r u l e s , t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n


11/49

ca rd se l e c t i o ns be tween a bs t r ac t and t hem a t i c g roups . One wouldh av e t o a r g u e t h a t m e re ly b e in g e xp os ed t o a r u l e w it h a n e g a t i v ecomponent i s s u f f i c i e n t t o t o t a l l y conf u se s u b j e c t s when t h eythen encounter an AA rule. Manktelow & Evans ( 19 79 ) t e s t e d t h i sp o s s i b i l i t y a nd fo un d no e v id e n c e f o r i t ( s ee se c t io n 2.2 below) .

Griggs & Cox, 1982In 1982 , Gr iggs & Cox t r i e d t o r e p l i c a t e Wason & S h a p i r o ' s

r e su l t (E xpe r i m en t 1 ). They used 32 s u b je c ts and gave each twoproblems: a t ra ns po r t a t io n problem and an a b s t r a c t p roblem. Hal fg o t one f i r s t , h a l f t h e o t h e r . L ik e Wason & Shap i ro , t hey u sedt h e "Every t ime n phr asin g. Unl ike Wason & Shapi r o , t hey found nodi f f e r en ce i n per formance between th e two problems.

Transportation Problem SummaryThe t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem e l i c i t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l ( g r e a t e r

t h an 50% f a l s i f i c a t i o n r a t e ) c o n te n t e f f e c t i n two e xp er im en ts(Wason & Shapiro, 1971; Bracewel l & Hidi , 1974) , a weak co nt en t

e f f e c t i n two e x pe r im e n ts ( G il ho ol y & Falconer , 1974; Po l l a rd ,1981) , and no c on te nt e f f e c t a t a l l i n f i v e e xp er im en ts(Bracewel l & Hidi, 1974; Manktelow & Evans, 1979; Brown e t al . ,1980; Yachanin & Tweney, 1982; Griggs & Cox, 1982).

2.2 The Food Problem

The "Food Pro ble mn was dev elo pe d by Manktelow & Evans(1979) . I t i s a c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e a bo u t m e al s, l i n k i n g so me th in ga pe r son ea t s w i t h som e th ing t h a t pe r son d r i nks , fo r example , " I fI e a t s a l a d t h en I dr i nk w a t e r . " Performance on t h e f ood problemhas been compared t o per formance on an a b s t r a c t (o r " lowthemat i c " ) p rob lem i n s i x exper iment s , fou r by Manktelow & Evans

33


12/49

(1 97 9) , one by Yachanin & Tweney (1982), and one by Reich & Ruth(1982) . No one ha s found an enhancement i n l o g i c a l performancewi th th e foo d problem.

Manktelow & Evans, 1979Manktelow & Evans conducted four exper iments us ing food

problems (Manktelow & Evans, 1979, Ex periments 1-4) . Thep r o t o c o l f o r t h e i r E xp er im en t 1 was s i m i l a r t o t h a t d e s c ri b e d i ns e c t i o n 2.1 f o r Yachan in & Tweney (198 2) . They sy s t em at ic al lyva r i ed which lo g ic a l component was a i rm at i ve or negat iv e . Eachs u b j ec t was g i ven an AA, AN, NA, and NN problem. L i k e Yachanin &Tweney, Manktelow & Evans reas oned t h a t i f t hemat i c con t en tf a c i l i t a t e s t h e u se of d e d u c ti v e l o g i c , t he n s u b j e c t s w i l l bel e s s l i k e l y t o f a l l v i c t i m t o t h e ma tc hin g b i a s when g i ve n a foodproblem than when giv en an a b s t r a c t problem. Every su bj ec t wasg i ven a t e s t b o o k l et w i t h w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s a nd f o u r p ro bl em s:24 su b je c ts were given fou r food problems, 24 were given fo ura bs t r ac t p robl ems. The 48 s ub j ec t s wer e t e s t ed a t t he same t ime ,a s a g roup .

Performance on t h e fo od problems was a s low a s performanceon th e a b s t r a c t problems , and both groups showed eviden ce of th em a tc h in g b i a s . T h i s r e s u l t h o l d s e ve n i f one c o n s i d e r s o n lya f f i r m a t i v e (AA ) r u l e s .

Puzzled by t h i s r e su l t , Manktelow & Evans s ys t ema t i ca l l yv a r i e d t a s k f a c t o r s t h a t c ou ld ha ve i n t e r f e r e d w it h l o g i c a lperformance. Exper iment 2 was id e n t ic a l t o Exper iment 1 , excepts u b j e c t s were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l ly , a lo n e i n c u b i c l e s, r a t h e r t ha ni n a group. The re s u l t s were th e same a s fo r Experiment 1.T e s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n d i v i d u a l l y o r i n a g r ou p a p p e a rs t o ha ve n o

3 4


13/49

e f f e c t on t h e i r pe rformance.Next, Manktelow & Evans wondered i f pr es en ti ng s o many

ru le s, and ru l e s with some negated components, was simplyimposing too grea t a " c o g n i t i v e l o a d " o n t h e i r s u b j e c t s --co nfu sin g them. So i n Experiment 3 , each of 32 su b je c ts answeredon ly one, a f f i rm a t i ve (AA) se le c t io n t a sk (ha l f were g iven a foodproblem, h a l f an ab s t ra c t problem) . Subj ec ts were run i n smal l ,unsupervised groups. Again , th er e was no d i f f er en ce i n car dse le c t io ns between t he them at i c and ab s t r a c t g roups .

Last, Manktelow & Evans wondered i f pre vio us enhancements i nperformance with them atic problems could have been due t o t hepresence and pa r t ic ip a t io n of th e experimenter . I n most of th ee a r l i e r s t u d i e s , t h e e x pe ri me nt er h ad re a d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n sa loud, a l lowed subj ec ts t o ins pec t a deck of sample card s fromwhich t he f our car ds f or th e s e l ec t i on t as k were randomly drawn,and req ues ted and recorded sub je ct responses. Manktelow & Evans'Experiment 4 was ide n t i c a l t o th e i r Exper im en t 3 , excep t sub j ec t swere run a s desc r ibe d above, wi th th e exper imenter co nt ro l l in gth e whole sequence of events . Again , t he re was no d i f f er en ce i nperformance between t he them atic and a b s t r a c t groups.*

One l a s t po in t: Using Manktelow & Evans' d at a on t h efrequency with which individual cards were chosen for thematicand abs t r ac t g roups, ** one can cons ide r the hypo the s i s th a tthemat ic cont ent reduces confus ion, even i f i t does no t f a c i l i t a t e* Manktelow & Evans' Experiment 5 , u s i n g t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o nproblem ( desc r ibed i n 2 .1) , was a l s o conducted t h i s way. Ther e s u l t s were t he same.** They r epo r t th e f requency with which ind ivi dua l car ds werechosen, regardless of t h e combination i n which th ey were chosen.


14/49

l o g i c by i n c r e a s i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t n ot-Q i s chosen.Manktelow & Evans had no hypotheses r egar d ing th e d i re c t io n o fd i f f e r en ce s fo r the P, no t-P, and Q c a r d s , s o f o r t h e s e t h e y u se dt w o -t a i le d F i s h e r ' s Ex ac t t e s t s . B u t suppose thematic contentreduces conf usion, and choosing not-P or Q, o r f a i l i n g t o c hooseP I i s evid ence of confusion. Then one would us e a on e- ta il edt e s t w i th t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t not-P a nd Q a r e ch os en l e s sf re que n t l y f o r themat ic p rob lems and P i s chosen more f requent ly .T h e i r d a t a d o n o t s u p p o r t t h i s h y p o th e s is . U sing o n e - t a i l e dt e s t s , t h e r e a r e no c a s e s of d i f f e r e n t i a l c h oo si ng o f P c a r d s .In Exper iments 1 , 2 , 4 , & 5, t h e r e a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h echo ice of not-P or Q cards be tween themat ic and abs t rac t g roups .I n E xp er im en t 3 t h e t h e m a t i c c o n d i t i o n e l i c i t e d fe we r n ot -Pc h o i c e s (p < . 03 8, p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n ) , bu t more Q c h o i c e s(p < .049, oppo s i te of p red ic t ed d i re c t io n) . Thus, Manktelow &E va ns ' d a t a p r o v id e no s u p p o r t f o r t h e h y p o th e s i s t h a t t h e m a t i cc o n t e n t d e c r e a s e s c o n f u sio n a b o u t t h e c o n d i t i o n a l ' s m eaning.

Yachanin & Tweney, 1982Yachanin & Tweney's (1982) s tud y include d a con di t ion

i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p roblem c o n d it i o n ( d e sc r i be d i ns e c t i o n 2 .l) e x c ep t t h a t t h e t h e m a t i c g ro up was t e s t e d on f o odprob lems ( t he ab s t ra c t g roup used fo r compar ison was t he same a st h a t f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o b l e m ) . They found no s ignif icantd i f f e r e n c e i n r e sp o n s es between t h e t h e m a t i c a nd a b s t r a c t g r ou p s(food: 1 4% r a b s t r a c t : 11%) .T h i s i s t r u e e ve n i f one c o n s id e r so n ly t h e a f f i r m a t i v e (AA ) problems.

Reich & Ruth, 1982F or l a c k of a b e t t e r p l a c e , I inc lude Re ich & Ruth (1982),


15/49

i n t h e fo o d p ro ble m s e c t i o n . T h e i r ex pe ri me nt d i f f e r s fro m t h eo t he r s i n t h a t t hey l ooked a t per fo rmance on " low t hemat i c"ve r s u s "h i gh t hemat i c" p r ob l ems , w i t hou t u s i ng an ab s t r a c tproblem fo r compar ison. The ir " low them at ic" problems were foodproblems. Th eir "high them at ic n problems were embedded i n as t o ry conte xt , fo r example: "Molly i s em ployed a t a s e a s i d e c a f e .S he h a s been i n s t r u c t e d by h er b o ss t o s e r v e t e a o r c o f f e e o nl ya t c e r t a i n t i me s of t h e d ay . V i s i t o r s n o t i c e t h a t : When i t i se a r l y Molly s e r v e s t e a . Are t hey co r r ec t ?" The ob j ec t was t oc r e a t e a c o he re n t, " u n it a ry " , e as y t o v i s u a l i z e s c e n a r i o l i n k i n gt h e t e r m s of t h e c o n d i t i o n a l .

Like Yachanin & Tweney (1 98 2) , Reich & Ruth gave eachs u b j e c t one a f f i r m a t i v e and t h r ee nega ted f or ms (AN, NAI NN) ofeach ru le . Twenty- four su bj ec t s were g iven low them at ic ru le s , 24were g iven h igh them at ic ru l es . High the ma t ic i ty d id nots i gn i f i c an t l y impr ove l o g i ca l per fo rmance , whe ther one cons i d e r sa l l f ou r r u l e f o rms (low t hemat i c : 17%; h i gh t hemat i c : 22% ) o ronly th e af f i rm at iv e form ( low themat ic : 4% ; high themat ic : 17%)Moreover, performanc e on th e "low the ma tic " foo d problems was i nt h e same low r ange of va l ues t y p i ca l l y f ound f o r a bs t r ac tproblems.

Food Problem SummaryNone of t h e s i x expe ri ment s t e s t i n g f ood p rob lems e l i c i t e d

an enhancemen t i n l o g i c a l per fo rmance w i t h r e s pe c t t o e i t h e ra b s t r a c t or " low thema t ic" problems. Fur thermore , a l thou gh somer es ea r c he r s ( e.g ., Po l l a r d , 1981) have c l a imed t h a t food p r ob lemsa r e n o t a s " t h e m a ti c " a s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p ro bl em s, no one h a s y e tp r opos ed a c r i t e r i o n f o r j udg i ng " t hem at i c i t y " , nor has any one


16/49

produced a reasoned argument to support the c la im that foodp roblems a r e l e s s the ma tic . Indee d, c ons ide r ing t ha t pe ople e a tand dr i nk a t sev er a l meals every day , one might t h ink t ha t , i fanythin g, food themes should be more fa mi li ar t o sub je ct s thant ra ns po r ta t ion the me s .

2.3 The School Problem

The sch oo l proble m, devel oped by Van Duyne (1974) , i s ac o n d i t i o n a l r e l a t i n g a p e r s on ' s m ajor f i e l d of s tu dy t o h i s o rher schoo l, f or example , " If a s tude n t s t ud i e s ph i los ophy , the nhe goes t o Harvard." There a r e two exper iments s tudy in g t h i sproblem: one found better performance for school problems thanfo r a b s t ra c t p roblems, the o the r d id no t .

Van Duyne, 1974Van Duyne compared perfo rmanc e on a b s t r a c t and sc hoo l

p ro bl em s f o r f o u r l o g i c a l l y e q u i va l e n t l i n g u i s t i c f o rm at s:

Univer sal : "Every s tudent who s t ud ie s physics i s a t Oxford. "S tandard Condi t iona l : " I f a s tuden t s tu d i es ph ilosophy then he i sa t Cambridge. "Dis junc t ive : "A s tuden t d oesn ' t s tudy French , o r he i s a t London."Conjunctive: " I t i s n ' t the c a s e t ha t a s tude n t s tu d i e s ps yc ho logyand i s n ' t a t Glasgow."

A l l f o ur l i n g u i s t i c fo rm at s a r e l o g i c a l l y e q u iv a le n t t o t h ec o n d i t i o n a l "I f a s t ud e nt s t u d i e s f i e l d A, then he goes t ou n i v e r s i t y B" (you can convince yoursel f of t h i s by con sul t i ngt h e t r u t h t a b l e f o r t h e c o n d i ti o n a l i n C hapt er 1: e.g. , t h ed i s j u n c t i v e s e n t e n c e i s e q u i va l e n t t o " I f a s t ud e n t s t u d i e sFrench, t hen he i s a t L on do nn ). For a l l f ou r l i n g u i s t i c f or ms,

3 8


17/49

t he co r rec t answ er i s t o c ho os e t h e m ajo r f i e l d me nt io ne d i n t h eproblem and the u n i v e r s i t y DS.t mentioned i n t he problem.

Van Duyne made no at tem pt t o r o t a t e combinat ions of f i e l d sa nd s c h o o l s t o a v oi d e f f e c t s d ue t o p re c o n ce p t io n s ; t h e f o u rse nte nce s above a r e th e fou r school problems he used. Each ofh i s 24 s ub je c t s answered th e f our problems above and fourab s t r a c t prob lems t h a t had th e same l i ng u i s t i c fo rm at s. Half t hes u b j e c t s a nsw er ed t h e f o u r a b s t r a c t pr ob le ms f i r s t , t h e o t h e rha l f answered th e four school prob lems f i r s t .

For the a bs t r ac t p roblem s, the re w ere no s ig n i f i ca n td i f f e r e n c e s i n p er c en t ag e c o r r e c t among t h e f o u r l i n g u i s t i cformats . Performance on th e d i s j un ct iv e and conj uc t ive fo rm s o ft he scho ol problem was a s low a s performance on th e a b s t r a c tproblems. However, t h e r e was a d if fe re n ce i n performance betweent h e sch ool and a b s t r a c t problems when they were phrased a su n i v e r s a l s a nd a s s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l s . For t h e u n i v e r s a lphras ing , 58% of sub jec t s gave the lo g i ca l l y c o r re c t answer onth e sc hool problem a s opposed t o 8% on th e a bs t r ac t problem. Fort h e s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l p h r a s i n g , 50% answered correc t ly on thescho ol problem, but only 12% on t he ab s tr ac t problem.

A s i n B ra ce we ll & Hi di ' s (1974) exper iment ( s ec t i on 2 .1 ,t r anspor t a t ion p rob lem ) , t h e c o n t en t e f f e c t d i s ap p e a re d i n somel i n g u i s t i c fo rm at s . However, t he absence of a con ten t e f f e c t fo rVan Duyne ' s d i s j u n c t i v e a nd c o n j u n c t i v e f o rm a t s i s l e s s damningt h a n i t i s for Bracewel l & H i d i ' s "Q every time P" format, whichi s a minor, and prag mati cal l y common, v a ri at i on on th e un iv er sa lfo rm at . Van Duyne I s d i s j u n c t i v e and c o n j u n c t i v e f o r ma t s c o n t a i na number of co mp li ca ti ng con ounds. For example, i n En gli sh , "A

39


18/49

or B" can mean "A or B bu t not bo th" o r "A or B or both". Also,h i s d i s j u n c t i v e ' s f i r s t component i s a negat ive , and a s mentionedp r e v i o u s l y , t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t p e o p l e h a v e d i f f i c u l t yin te rp re t i ng ne ga t ive s (Wason 61 Johnson-Laird, 1 9 7 2 ; of course ,one could s t i l l a rgue tha t the ma t ic c on te n t s hou ld l e s s e n thein te rp re ta t i on a l d i f f i c u l t i e s ) . Fur thermore , Van Duyne lscon j unc t ive no t on ly has two nega t ive s , bu t i t has two negativesof d i f f e r e n t s c op e -- t h e f i r s t i s meant t o encompass t h e wholefo l low ing s ta tement , whereas the second ap p l ie s on ly t o theschool . Las t, "A st ude nt do es n' t s tudy French or he i s a tLondon" i s a ra t he r b iz a r re way of say ing " I f a s tuden t s t ud ie sFrench then he i s a t London," and " I t i s n ' t t he ca se t h a t as tud en t s t ud ie s psychology and is n ' t a t Glasgow" i s a s tr ang e wayof say ing " I f a s tu dent s t ud ie s psychology then he i s a tGlasgow." Pra gmat ica l ly , a nega tiv e i s us ua l ly u s ed t oc o n t r a d i c t a p r e s up p o si t i o n t h a t i s the t op ic of c onve rs a t ion --i t i s no t u s ed t o in t roduc e a top ic (C lark & Cla rk, 1982, p. 99 ).For th ese reasons , I do n o t f i n d t h e l a c k of a c o nt e n t e f f e c t f o rthe se two l i n g u i s t i c fo rmats ve ry in t e re s t i ng . Too many o therf a c t o r s could be swamping th e e ff ec t .

The un ive r s a l a nd s t a nda rd c ond i t i ona l fo rmats d id e l i c i tcont ent ef f ec t s . However, I would l i k e t o o f f e r two c a ve a t s i ni n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s r e s ul t .

1) Any of the s ub je c t s t a k ing t h i s t e s t know th a t i n r e a ll i f e the r u l e e xpre ss e d by the s c hoo l problem i s f a l s e .Un iv e rs i t i e s a r e no t s e g re ga te d by major f i e ld . I t i s simplyf a l s e t h a t a l l psychology s t u d e n t s go t o H ar var d -- some go t o


19/49

Yal e , Tuf t s , U . Mass., etc., and, I presume, every s tu de nt knowst h i s . Compounding t h i s problem, Gr iggs (1983) has poin te d ou tt h a t i n t h e U . K . , Cambridge i s renowned for i t s e x c e ll e n c e i np h y s i c s ( t h e r u l e p a i r s p h y s ic s w it h O xf ord ) , and Oxford i srenowned for i t s e x c e l l e n c e i n p h il os o ph y ( t h e ru le p a i r sphi losophy wi th Cambridge) .

T h i s c r e a t e s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l pro ble ms b ec au se t h e r e i se v id e nc e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i f a s u b j e c t h a s pe rs o na l b e l i e f s a bo utt h e v e r a c i t y of t h e r e l a t i o n e x p r es s e d by a l o g i c a l p ro ble m, t h a tsu b j ec t ' s pe rf or mance on t he l og i c a l p robl em i s g u id e d, i n p a r t ,by a d e s i r e or t endency t o conirm t h o s e p e r s o n al b e l i e f s . I no t he r words, when sub j ec t s be l i eve a s t a t emen t t o be t r u e t hey t r yt o v e r i f y i t , and when they believe i t t o be f a l s e t h ey t r y t of a l s i f y it ( J a n i s & Frick, 1943; Wason & John son- Laird, 1972 , Ch.7 ; Van Duyne, 1976; Pollard & Evans, 1981; se e Po l la rd , 1982 fo rr ev i ew) . G iven t h e r epu t a t i o ns o f t h e schoo l s u sed, a "be l i e fb i a s " would l e ad t o f a l s i f i c a t i o n . Thus, one doe sn ' t know i f t hee f f e c t i s d ue t o b e l i e f b i a s , o r due t o t h e e f f e c t of t h em a ti cc o n t e n t a s s uc h. I n t e s t i n g f o r c o n t e nt e f f e c t s , one w an ts t on e u t r a l i z e any e f f e c t s of b e l i e f b i a s , n o t e x a c e r ba t e them byu s in g r u l e s t h a t a r e b ot h f a l s e a nd c on t ra r y t o t h e s u b j e c t ' sp e r s o n a l p r e j u d i c e s .

2 ) Th is problem has some (but not a l l ) o f th e earmarks of aso c i a l c on t r a c t p roblem, f o r which t h e r e does seem t o be r e l i a b l ee v id e nc e f o r a c o n t e nt e f f e c t . B r i e f l y , i n s o c i a l c o n t r a c tp ro bl em s t h e c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e e x p r e s s e s a c o n t r a c t i n which aper son i s e l i g i b l e f o r a b e n e f i t i f , and o nl y i f , s he pa ys ap r i c e o r m ee ts a r eq u ir em e nt ( f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n s f o l lo w i n


20/49

s e c t i o n 2.4 and Chapter 5 ) . Given such a r u l e i n a Wasons e l e c t i o n t a s k , a s u b j e c t lo o ki n g f o r a " ch e at e r" -- anin di vi du al who has absconded wi th t he be ne f i t wi thout having pai dth e p r i c e o r met t he r equ i rem ent -- would choose the same cardsa s a s u b j e c t se ek in g l o g i c a l f a l s i f i c a t i o n .

Van Duyne s school r u l e was embedded i n a " look f o rc h e a t e r s " co n t e x t . S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t t h e c a r d s were ta k enf ro m a r e g i s t e r of s t u d e n t s who a r e e l i g i b l e f o r a g r a n t ( t h eb e n e f i t ) , and t h a t c e r t a i n r u l e s a r e s upposed t o ap pl y t oe l i g i b l e s t u d e n t s ( t h e re q ui r em e nt s t h a t must be met t o g e t t h ebe ne f i t ) . R a the r than be ing asked t o tu rn ove r the ca rdsnecessa ry to see "whethe r the r u l e i s t r u e or n ot n (a commonw ord ing) , s ub j ec t s were a sked t o tu r n ove r th e ca rds necessa ry t osee "whether they v i o la te t h e r u l e or not" (emphasis mine) ."Viola te" was used for both t he a bs t r ac t and school problems, soi t cannot , i n i t s e l f , exp la in th e d i f f e rence . But my po in t i st h a t t h i s c h o i c e of words i n c on j u nc t i on w i th a c o n t e x t d e f i n i n ge l i g i b i l i t y f o r a b e n e f it s u gg es ts t h a t one i s l o o k i n g f o r av i o l a t o r , t h a t i s , a chea te r on a so c i a l con t rac t . Thus, i t wasnot cl ea r t o me whether I sho uld in cl ud e Van Duyne I s schoolp ro bl em i n t h i s s e c t i o n o r t h e n e x t one, on s o c i a l c o n t r a c tproblems. According t o th e formula t ion t h a t w i l l be p resen ted i nC ha pt er 5 , a f u l l f l e d ge d s o c i a l c o n t r a c t s ho ul d h av e t h e b e n e f i ts t a t e d i n t h e an te ce de nt : i n t h i s problem, t h e b e n e f i t i s s t a t e di n t h e c o n t e x t , and t h e r u l e s t a t e s a c o n d i t i o n al r eq ui re me ntt h a t e a rn i ng t h e b e n e f i t i s co nt in ge nt upon. Thus, i t i s ahybr id between a fu l l - f l e dged so c i a l con t rac t and as t r a i g h t f o r w a r d r e l a t i o n a l r u l e w i t h t h em a ti c c o n t en t . T h i s


21/49

makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o know wh et her t h e e f f e c t was d ue t o t h e u s eof t hema t i c con ten t i n gene ra l , o r whethe r i t was s p e c i f i c t o t h eu s e of a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t c o nt e x t .

P l e a s e n o t e t h a t if t h i s c on t ex t e x e r c i s e d a m ajor e f f e c t itwould mi t ig a t e t h e cr i t i c i sm e xp re ss ed i n t h e f i r s t c av ea t,b ec au se t h e r u l e would n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s a s t a t e m e nt a b o uta l l s t u d e n t s , m er el y ab ou t t ho s e i n t e r e s t e d i n ea r n i n g t h e g r a n t.

Yachanin & Tweney, 1982Yachanin & Tweneyls (1982) s tudy inc luded a c ond i t i on

i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a nd fo od c o n d i t io n s ( d e sc r ib e di n s e c t io ns 2 .1 and 2 .2 ) , excep t t h a t t h e t hema t i c g roup waste s t ed on school problems ( t he ab s t ra c t g roup used fo r compar isonwas th e s ame a s t h a t f o r t h e t r a nsp o r t a t i on and food p rob lems) .They do no t say whether they r o t a t ed schoo ls and major f i e l d s ond i f f e r en t prob lems ; t hey say on ly t h a t t he i r r u l e s " were expec tedt o be c on s i s t e n t w i t h t h e e x p er i en c e s of t h e s u b j e c t p o p u l at i o n. "

Unl ike Van Duyne (1974) , Yachanin & Tweney found nos i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n r es p o ns e s between t h e t h e m a t ic s c ho o lg ro u p a nd t h e a b s t r a c t g r o up ( s ch o ol : 1 2 % , a b s t r a c t : 11%) T h i si s t r u e e ve n i f one c o n s i d e r s o n ly t h e a f f i r m a t i v e ( AA ) problems.Yachanin & Tweney do not re po r t hav ing embedded th e i r ru le s i n as t o r y c o n t e x t, s o c i a l c o n t r a c t o r o th er wi se .

School Problem SummaryOne s tudy found a co nte nt e f f e c t wit h t he school problem and

one st ud y d i d no t. Van Duyne (1974) found a c o nt e n t e f f e c t w i t hthe school problem when it was p re sen ted i n a un i ve r sa l o rs t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l f or ma t. H e found no conten t e f f ec t when t heschoo l prob lem was p re sen ted i n a d i s j un c t iv e o r con j unc t iv e


22/49

format, but t h e r e ar e a number of confounds t h a t could haveswamped an e f fe c t fo r the se l i n g u i s t i c fo rmat s . Because h i sschool problems were embedded i n a con tex t t h a t made h i s r u l ep a r t o f a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t r a t h e r t ha n a s i mp l e d e s c r i p t i v ere l a t i on , and because h i s sub jec t s were , i n e s sence , a sked t o" look fo r chea te r s", i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o t e l l whether thef a c i l i t a t i o n h e found i s due to t he use of them at i c con ten t i ng e n er a l , o r due t o t h e s o c i a l c o n t r ac t c o nt e nt t h a t i t has.Yachanin & Tweney (1 98 2) , who di d not embed t h e i r problem i n aso c i a l c on t rac t con tex t , found no enhancement i n log ic a lperformance w i t h t h e school problem.2.4 So ci a l Contrac t Problems

A so c i a l co n t r ac t s pe c i f i e s what two o r more ind i v id ua l sin t e nd t o exchange. In a soc ia l con t r ac t , whethe r an ind iv idua lr e c e i v e s a b e n e f i t i s cont ingent upon h i s paying a co s t ormeeting a requirement . Chapter 5 prov ides a de ta i l ed accoun t o fth e s t r uc tu re of so c i a l con t ra c t s ; my purpose he re i s t o g i v e t her ea de r an i n t u i t i v e g r as p of t h i s s t r u c t u r e , s o I can review ther e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e .

A s o c i a l c o n t r a c t r u l e r e l a t e s p er ce iv ed benefits t ope rce ived co s t s , express ing an exchange i n which an ind iv i dua l i sexpec ted t o pay a co s t _tp a n i n d i v i d u a l o r g ro up i n o r de r t o bee l i g i b l e t o r e ce i v e a b e n e f i t from t h a t ind iv idua l o r g roup ."Cheatingn i s t h e v i o l a t i o n of a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t r u l e ; mores p e c i f i c a l l y , chea t ing i s t h e f a i l u r e t o pay a c o s t t o which youhave obl i ga t ed your se l f by accept ing a ben ef i t , and wi thout whicht h e o t h e r person would no t have agreed t o provide t he ben ef i t .


23/49

C h ea t in g d o es n o t a l wa ys c or re sp o nd t o l o g i c a l f a l s i f i c a t i o n .Con side r t h e " Drin kin g Age Problemn (DAP; Gr ig g s & Cox,

1 9 8 2 ), p i c t u r e d i n F ig u re 2 .l.

Fi gur e 2 .1

For American s ub j e c t s who pe r c e i v e d r i nk i n g bee r a s a r a t i o ne dbe ne f i t t h a t can on l y be had by wa i t i ng un t i l t hey have met ana g e r eq u ir e me n t ( t h e c o s t ) , t h e DAP e x p r e s s e s a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t

-

of t h e form:"If you t a k e t h e b e n e f i t , t h e n you pay t h e c o s t . "

Drinking Age Problem (D AP ; adapted from Griggs & COX,1982) 1I n its crackdown against drunk d rivers. Massachusetts aw enforcement officials are revoking liqu or licenses Ieh and righ t. Yo u are abouncer in a Boston bar, and yo ul l lose your job unless you enforce the following law:

"If a person is drinking beer, then he must be over 20 years old."(If P then Q )The cards below have inform ation about fo ur people silting at a table i n your bar. Each card represents one person. One side of a card tellswhat a person is drink ing a nd the other side of the card tells that personSs ge.Indicate only those card(s) you definitely need to tu rn over to see i f any of these people are break ing this law. ...................................................... drinking beer : drinking coke : 25 years old : 16 years old :.....................................................(P I (not-P) (Q ) (not-Q)

T h i s same r u l e would n o t e x p r es s a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t t o s u b j e c t swho do n o t t h i n k of t h e r i g h t t o d r i n k a l c o h o l a s a n a g e -r a t io n e dp r i v i l e g e . I am t o l d t h a t i n t h e USSR, pe op le of any age can buya nd d r i n k a l c o h o l : it i s a " f r e e good" w i t h r e s p ec t t o age . ForR us si an s u b j e c t s t h e DAP r u l e would b e m ere ly & a x l @ t l v e ,.r e l a t i n g a p r e d i s p o s i t i o n f o r d r i n k i n g b ee r t o a d v an c in g a ge . *The t r an s p or t a t i o n and food p rob lems, a s we l l a s Yachani n &Tweney's sch ool problem, were d e sc r i p t i v e ru le s . Van Duyne'ss c h o o l p ro bl em was a p r e s c r i p t i v e r u l e , b u t n o t a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t

* Much a s " I f a per son ha s a he ar t a t t a ck , then he mus t be over20 y e a r s o l d n d e s c r i b e s a r e l a t i on s h i p be tween advanci ng age anda p r e d i sp o s i t i o n t o s u f f e r h e a r t a t t a c k s .


24/49

r u l e , b ec au se t h e b e n e f i t was n o t m en ti one d i n t h e r u l e i t s e l f .F igure 2.2 shows th e s t r uc tu re o f a Wason se l e c t io n t a s k

t h a t u s e s a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t (SC) r u l e . I r r e s p e c t i v e o f l o g i c a lc a t e g o ry , a s u b j e c t l o o k in g f o r p o t e n t i a l c h e a t e r s sh o ul d c ho os et h e " c o s t NOT p a id " c a r d ( h a s he i l l i c i t l y a bsco nd ed w i th t h eb e n e f i t ? ) a nd t h e " b e n e f i t a c ce p t ed " c a r d ( h a s h e p a i d t h er e q u i r e d c o s t ? ) .Figu re 2.2

Structure of Social Contract (SC) ProblemsIt is your job to enforce the following law:Rule I - tanda rd Socia l Contrac t (STD-SC): "If you take the benefit, then you pay the cost."(I f P then Q 1Rule 2 - witched Social Contract (SWC-SC): "If you pay the cost, then you take the benefit."

(If P then Q )The cards below have information about four people. Each card represents one person. One side of a card tells whether a person acceptedthe benefit an d th e other side of the card tells whether that person paid the cost.Indicate onl y those card(s) you definitely need to tu rn over t o see if any of these people are breaking this law. .....................................................

Benefit . : Benefit : . Cost : Cost .: Accepted : : NOT Accepted . Paid : : NOT Paid.....................................................

Rule I - TD-SC: (p ) (not -P) (Q) (not -QfRule 2 - WC-S C: (Q) (not-Q) (p ) (n o t -P )

Whether l o o k i n g f o r p o t e n t i a l c h e a t e r s on a s o c i a l c o n t r a c tp r od u ce s l o g i c a l l y f a l s i f y i n g c a r d c h o i c e s on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o nt a s k d ep en ds on w he re t h e c o s t s an d b e n e f i t s t o t h e p o t e n t i a lc h ea t er a r e l o c at e d i n t h e " If -t he n" s t r u c t u r e of t h e r u l e .

A "s tand ard" s o c ia l co nt rac t (STD-SC) i s one where theb e n e f i t t o t h e p o t e n t i a l c he at er i s l o c a t e d i n t h e a n t ec e de ntc l aus e and th e cos t / r equi r emen t i s l o c a t e d i n t h e c o ns eq ue ntc l ause . Ru le 1 of Figure 2 .2 and t h e DAP a r e STD-SCs. For aSTD-SC, t h e " be ne f i t a ccep ted" ca rd co r r e sponds t o t h e l o g i ca l

4 6


25/49

ca tego ry "P" , and t he "cos t NOT p a i d " c a r d c o rr e s po n d s t o t h el o g i c a l c a t e g o r y "not-Q" .

A "switched" s o c i a l co nt ra ct (SWC-SC) i s one where thel o c a t i o n s o f c o s t a nd b e n e f i t a r e s wi tc h ed -- t h e c o s t i s i n t hea n t e c e de n t c l a u s e a nd t h e b e n e f i t i s i n t h e c on se qu en t c l a u s e .Rule 2 of Figure 2 .2 i s a SWC-SC. For a SWC-SC, t h e " b e n e f i ta c ce pt e d" c a r d c o r re s po nd s t o t h e l o g i c a l c a t eg o ry "Q" and the" c o s t NOT p a i d " c a r d c o r r e sp o n ds t o t h e l o g i c a l c a t e g o ry "not-P".

Consequently, lo ok in g f o r c he at er s on a STD-SC prod uces t h el o g i c a l l y f a l s i f y i n g , ' P & not-Q' response, whereas loo kin g f o rch ea te rs on a SWC-SC produces a lo g i c al l y in co rr ec t , 'not-P & Q 'response.

I n t h e s e a r c h f o r c o n t e n t e f f e c t s on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o nt a sk , 16 exper imen t s have t e s t ed r u l e s whose con ten t exp re s se s as t an d ar d s o c i a l c o n t r a c t -- t h e fo rmat fo r which 'P & not-Qv i st h e cho ic e of a s ub j e c t who i s l o ok in g f o r p o t e n t i a l c h e a t er s . As u b s t a n t i a l c o n t e n t e f f e c t h a s been f ou nd i n e v e ry one o f t h e s eexperiments .

2.4.1 The Po st Of fi ce ProblemA p o s t o f f i c e p ro bl em i s a c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e e x p r e ss i n g a

po s t a l r egu l a t i on , f o r example, " I f a l e t t e r we ighs two ounces ,i t must have 44 c en ts postage. " Whether a pa r t i cu l a r pos t o f f i c eproblem i s a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t o r n o t d ep en ds on t h e s u b j e c tpopu la t i on o r t h e p robl em 's con t ex t . I t i s a s o c i a l c o n t r ac tproblem:1. i f i t s c o n s t i t u e n t p r o p o s it i o n s a r e r e co g n iz a bl e a s c o s t s an d

r a t i o n e d b e n e f i t s t o t h e s u b j e c t p op u la ti o n, o r2 . i f t h e s t o r y c o n t e x t s u rr o u nd i n g t h e p ro bl em d e f i n e s t h e

4 7


26/49

c o n s t i t u e n t p r o p o si t i o n s a s c o s t s a nd r a t i o n e d b e n e f i t s .However, i f i t s c o n s t i t u e n t p r o p o s i t i on s a r e a r b i t r a r y w it hr e s p e c t t o t h e s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n ' s under s t a n d i n g of c o s t s a ndr a t i o n e d b e n e f i t s , t h en t h e same r u l e i s m ere ly desc r ip t ive .

For A mericans , t h e pos t o f f i c e ru l e , " I f a l e t t e r i s s e a l e d ,then i t must have 20 ce nt s postage", i s e i t h e r d e s c r i p t i v e orp r e s c r i p t i v e , * b u t n ot a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t , b ec au se s e a l i n g anenvelope i s n o t c o n s id e r ed a r a t i o n e d b e n e f i t i n ou r c u l t u r e --s e a l i n g i s j u s t something one always does, a f r e e good. However,t h i s same problem i s a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t p roblem f o r o l d e r B r i t i s hsu b j ec t s , because i n B r i t a i n be fo re 1968 one cou ld pay lowerr a t e s i f o ne l e f t t h e l e t t e r u ns ea le d. I n o t he r words, t h ep r i v a c y g ai n ed by s e a l i n g a l e t t e r was a b e n e f i t t h a t h ad t o bep ai d f o r i n t h a t c u l t u re .

Johnson-Laird, Legrenz i, & Legrenz i, 1972Johnson-Laird, Legrenzi , and Legre nzi (1972) formul ated t he

f i r s t and most famous pos t off ice/SC problem. Their themati cr u l e was:

" If a l e t t e r i s s e a l e d , t h e n it has a 50 l i r e sta mp on i tnThe i r s ub je c t s were B r i t i sh . I n B r i t a in , w i th in the memory oft h e i r s u b j e c t s , s e a l i n g an en v el o pe was a b e n e f i t r a t i o n e d bya b i l i t y t o p ay; u n s ea l e d e n v el o p es c o ul d be s e n t a t a lo we r r a t e( t h i s i s no longer the ca se ) . Furthermore , t he su b je c t s w erein s t ru c t ed t o im ag ine they were pos ta l worke r s look ing fo rl e t t e r s t h a t " v i o l a t e t h e r u l e " . Thus, t h e p ro bl em a s ke d them t o

* Depending on whether t he person sa yin g t h e r u l e i s simplymaking an o bs e r v a t io n a b ou t s e a l e d l e t t e r s ( d e s c r i p t i v e ) o rt e l l i n g you a s ee mi ng ly a r b i t r a r y p o s t a l r e g u l at i o n( p r e s c r i p t i v e ).


27/49

look fo r ch ea te rs on a so c ia l co ntr act . They were then shown th efo l l owing d i sp l ay of f i v e r e a l envelopes wi th r ea l l i r e stamps:

Figure 2.3 Thematic problem "card " di sp la y, Johnson-Laird e t a l . , 1972

P not-P Q not -Q not-QThe envelopes are labeled with P s and Qs fo r t he r eade r ' s conven i ence ;they were not so labe led i n th e ac tu al exper iment .

The lo gi ca l l y c or re c t answer i s t o choose 1 ) t h e s e a l e denvelope ( P ) , t o s e e i f t h e s en de r pu t t o o l i t t l e p o st ag e , and 2 )t h e 40 l i r e and no s tamp envelopes (not -Q ) , which have too l i t t l ep os ta ge t o be e l i g i b l e f o r s e a l i n g , t o s e e i f t h e s en deri l l i c i t l y s ea l ed them. These a r e t he same ca rd cho i ces a sub j ec t" looking f o r ch ea te rs " would make.

J oh nso n-L aird e t a l . t e s t e d t h i s r u l e i n two d i f f e r e n tl i n g u i s t i c f or ma ts : " I f P then Q " and "P only if Q " (e.g. , "Al e t t e r i s sea le d only i f i t has a 50 l i r e stam p on i t " ) . Toreduce redundancy, one format used Brit ish stamps and the otheruse I t a l i a n stamps. Each of 2 4 sub jec t s were g iven a t o t a l offou r problems, one them atic and one ab st ra ct i n each of th e twol i n g u i s t i c formats . The order of problem pre sen tat i on wasrandomized ac ro ss sub jec ts . The "ca rds" fo r the a bs t r ac t problemswere a l so re a l enve lopes , wi th l e t t e r s and numbers on the f ro ntand back. The ru le re f le c t ed t h i s by re fer i ng t o the envelopes as" l e t t e r s " : " I f a l e t t e r h a s an A on one side, then it has a 3 onthe o the r s i de . "


28/49

Figu re 2.4 Abs tra ct problem "card" di sp la y, Johnson-Laird e t a l . , 1972

P not-P Q not-Q not-Q (o r not-P)

N inety- tw o pe rcen t of the s ub j ec t s gave th e lo g i ca l l yf a l s i f y i n g answer f o r a t l e a s t one of t h e t h e m a ti c p ro bl em s, b u tonly 29 % g av e t h i s answer f o r a t l e a s t one of t h e a b s t r a c tproblems. Seventy-one perc ent of the su bj ec ts go t both the mat icproblems co rr ec t , but none of them got both ab s t r a c t problemsco rr ec t . There was no t r an sf er f rom themat ic problems t oa b s t r a c t problems, and when asked, only two of th e 24 su bj ec tsr e a l i z e d t h a t t h e l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e t h em at ic and a b s t r a c tp roblem s was s im i l a r . There were no e f fe c t s due t o l i n g u i s t i cformat. Eighty-one perc ent of th e 48 thema tic problems ( t h er ew ere 2 per su b j ec t ) w ere co r r ec t l y so lved , ve r sus 15% of th eabs t r ac t p rob lem s .

Golding, 1981Golding (1981) conducted t h e Johnson-Laird, Legrenzi , &

Legrenz i (1972) exper imen t us ing a popu la t ion o f B r i t i sh s ub je c t sranging i n age f rom 20 to 70 years . For s ub je c t s under 4 5 t h epo st o f f i c e problem was a pr es cr ip t i ve , non-SC problem, becauset h e "lower r a t e s f o r u ns ea le d l e t t e r s n r u l e was n o t i n e f f e c twi th in the i r memory -- fo r them the cons t i tu en t p ropo s i t io ns weren o t r e c o g n iz a b l e a s a c o s t a nd r a t i o n e d b e n e f i t . T hus, t h e r e i sno reason why th es e younger su bj ec ts would con side r se al in g anenve lope a ben ef i t t h a t had t o be pa id fo r . However, t h i s same


29/49

r u l e i s a s oc ia l co nt ra c t problem fo r s ub je c t s over 45 whoremembered t h e ol d re gu la t i on , because the y would have recognizedit a s h av in g a c o s t - b e n e fi t s t r u c t u r e .

There was no d i f f er en ce i n lo gi c a l per formance between th eol de r and younger s ub je ct s on t he ab st ra ct problem. However, 59%of t h e o l d e r s u b j e c t s g av e t h e l o g i c a l l y c o r r e c t , " lo ok f o rchea te r s" r e sponse t o th e pos t o f f i ce p roblem , compared t o only9% of th e younger su bje c ts .

Golding her se l f f ramed th e d i f f er en ce between t he two groupsi n te rm s of f a m i l i a r i t y r a t he r t ha n s o c i a l c o n t r a ct s -- o l d e rsu b j ec t s w ere more f am i l i a r wi th the r u l e than younger ones. Inhe r v iew, o lde r s ub j ec t s per fo rm be t t e r because they have d i r e c te x pe r ie n ce w i t h f a l s i f y i n g i n s t a n c e s , and t h e s e i n s t a n c e s a r eav ai la bl e i n memory. In o the r words , o lder su bj ec ts do notreason abou t th e ru le , t hey s im ply recognize a pa i r in g a sf a l s i f y i n g i f i t occ urs t o them. There i s n o th i ng i n h e rexperiment t o l e t one choose be tween her in te rp re ta t i o n and as o c i a l c o n t r a c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

Gr iggs & Cox, 1982Griggs & Cox (1982, Experiment 2) conduc ted Johnso n-Laird e t

a l . ' s pos t of f i c e problem us ing 24 American co l l eg e s tu den ts .For American s tude n t s , t he pos t o f f i c e r u l e i s n o t a s o c i a lcon t rac t , because i t s c o n s t i t u e n t p r o p o s i t i on s a r e n otr e c o g n i z a b l e a s a c o s t a nd r a t i o n e d b e n e f i t ( s e a l i n g a n en v el o pei s a f r e e g ood i n t h e U . S . ) . Griggs & C ox 's p rocedure d i f f e r edfrom Johnson-Laird e t a l . i n only two ways: 1) they used Americanand Mexican in s t ea d o f B r i t i sh and I t a l i a n s t am ps , and 2 ) fo r t hea b s t r a c t c o n di t i on t he y made c l e a r t h e f a c t t h a t l e t t e r s co ul d


30/49

appear only on t h e f r o n t of an envelope, whereas numbers couldapp ear only on t h e back. Because Johnson-Laird e t a l . d i d n otsa y th i s , t h e b lan k e n ve lop e i n th e th e ma t ic c o n di t io n wasc l ea r l y an in s t anc e of not -Q, whereas th e b lank enve lope i n th ea b s t ra c t c o n d i t io n c o u ld be c a te g o r i z e d a s e i t h e r not -P o r not-Q.Griggs & Cox ar g u e t h a t t h i s i s a s er io us confound because "twonot -Q i n s t a nc e s i n t h e t h em at i c a r r a y s h i g h l i g h t a s e l e c t i o n t h a ti s c r i t i c a l f o r t h e c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n " (p.412) .*

There was no s ig n i f i ca n t d i f f e r enc e i n pe rfo rmance betweenth e th e ma t ic a nd a b s t r a c t p rob le ms ( th e mat ic : 1 / 2 4 c o r r e c t ,a b s t r a c t : 4/24 c o r r e c t ) . Furthermore, th e conound discussedabove cannot have accounted for Johnson-Laird e t a l . ' s r e s u l t s ,because performance on both the mat ic and a b s t r a c t problems waslow i n t h i s e xp er ime nt . I f Gr igg s & Co x ' s h ig h l ig h t in ge x p la n a t io n ha d been t r u e , th e i r a d d in g th e n ot -Q h i g h l i g h t t oth e a bs t ra c t p roblems would have ra i sed a bs t r ac t performance t oth e h igh l e v e l e l i c i t e d by Jo hn so n-La ird e t a l . ' s t h e m a t i cproblems, no t lowered themat i c performance t o th e l ev e l o fa b s t r a c t .

Van Duyne, 1976Van Duyne (1976) b r ie f l y rep or ts t he r es u l t s o f an a s ye t

unpubl ished s tudy ("Semant ics and reason ing" , i n p re para t io n)comparing t h e performance of fo ur independent groups of s ub je ct s

* ~ o h n s o ~ - ~ a i r dt a l . cou ld counte r tha t the ambigu i ty i si r r e l e v a n t b ec au se t h e i r r u l e r e f e r e d t o "one s i d e of t h eenve lope" ve rsus " the o the r s i de n ; hence , t o be sa fe , one shou ldassume t h e blank was a p o t e n t i a l not-Q. However, t h i s i s ane x t ra , r a t h e r su b t l e in fe re n c e th a t o ne need n o t make i n th ethemat i c cond i t ion . Thus, Gr iggs & Cox's obj ect io n would s t i l ls t a n d , a s th e th e ma t ic p ro blem a lo ne c o n t a in s two c le a r ,unambiguous not-Q i ns ta nc es , and t h e i s s u e would have t o bed e c ide d e mp i r i c a l ly , a s it was.


31/49

on t h e fo l l ow i n g fou r ru l e s (one p robl em pe r su b j ec t ) :1. an a b s t r a c t r u l e2 . a d e s c r i p t i v e p os t o f f i c e r u l e u s i n g r e a l e nv e lo p es a s

" c ar d s ": " I f t h e r e i s L.B . M i l l on one s i d e of t he enve lopet h en t h e r e i s PRINTED PAPER REDUCED RATE on t h e ot h e r s i d e n .T h i s r u l e ' s c o n s t i t u e n t p r o p os i t io n s a r e n o t r e c og n iz a bl ec o s t s and r a t i o n e d b e n e f i t s t o B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s .

3 . a n SC p o s t o f f i c e r u l e u s in g c a r d s t o r e p r e s e n t e n ve l op e s : " I ft h e r e i s PRINTED PAPER REDUCED RATE on one s i d e of t heenve l ope t hen it mu st be l e f t o p en n . T h i s i s a r e a l p o s t a lr u l e i n B r i t a i n , w he re t h e e x pe r im e nt was r un . To b e e l i g i b l ef o r t h e l ow er r a t e s f o r p r i n t e d m a t te r , t h e c o n t e n t s of anenve lope cannot co n t a i n any per son a l cor respondence . Thus,t h e l a c k o f p r i v a c y n e ed ed f o r t h e p o s t o f f i c e t o make s p o tchecks i s t h e p r i c e you pay t o be e l i g i b l e f o r t h e b e n e f i t o fsav i ng money on m a i l i ng s o f p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l .

4. t h e s ame SC p o s t o f f i c e r u l e a s i n ( 3 ) , u s i n g e n ve l op e s a s " c a r d s n .

H e r e p o r t s t h e f o l l o wi n g p e rc e n ta g e c o r r e c t f o r t h e f o u rproblems: (1) a b s t r a c t -- 1 9.27 %, ( 2 ) d e s c r i p t i v e p os t o f f i c e --48.96%, ( 3 ) S C p o s t o f f i c e ( c ar d s) -- 86.98%, (4) SC po s t o f f i c e(enve lopes) 97 .92%. H e s a y s t h e s e f o u r f orm a " h i g h lys i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d " , b u t d oe s n o t sa y what s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s heperformed, o r even th e number of su b j ec t s i n th e s tudy .

So many d e t a i l s a r e o m it te d from h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i ss t u d y t h a t i t s r e l e v a n c e i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n . However, i tse em s u n l i k e l y t h a t h i s s am ple s i z e s c o ul d be s o s m a ll t h a t t h eavera ge per formance on th e s o c i a l con t r ac t p roblems of 92.45% and8 6.9 8% would n o t be s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t f ro m 1 9. 27 % f o r t h e

53


32/49

a b s t r a c t p robl em, o r even fr om 48.96% f o r t he d es c r i p t i ve pos to f f i c e problem. Assuming t h a t Van Duyne used th e usua l sc or in gsystem ( 'P and not-Q' i s a "h i t " , any o the r answer i s a "miss") ,th e minimum number of s u b je c ts r eq ui re d t o ge t t h e number"97.92%" for group ( 4 ) i s 48 ( 47 ou t o f 48 co r r ec t ) . I t i sd o u b t f u l , ho we ver, t h a t h i s g r ou p s i z e s w er e e q u al . I f t h e ywere, th e minimum number of s ub je ct s per group re qu ir ed f o r a l lf ou r pe r cen t ag es t o be po ss i b l e numbers i s 192. A s t h i s wouldmean h i s s t u d y u se d a t o t a l of 7 68 s u b j e c t s , I presume he hadu n eq ua l g ro u p s i z e s . B ut i f g r ou p s i z e s d i d v a r y a ro un d 4 8 , t h ed i f f e r en ce s be tween a l l f ou r g r oups would be s t r on g l ys i g n i f i c a n t . I f t h i s were t r u e , h i s d e s c r i p t i v e p os t o f f i c eco nd i t io n would al s o have shown enhanced performance over th ea b s t r a c t c o n di t i on . But t h e r e a r e to o many i f s t o jud ge .

2.4.2 The Dr in ki ng Age ProblemThe " Drin kin g Age Problem", or DAP, was developed by Griggs

& Cox (1982). I t i s a r u l e r e l a t i n g e l i g i b i l i t y t o d ri nka l co ho l i c beve r ages t o age , f o r example , " I f a pe r son i s d r i n k i n gbeer the n he must be over 20 yea rs old " (see F i g u re 2 . 1 ) . I n o u rc u l t u r e , d r i n k i n g a l c o ho l i s a b e n e f i t t h a t one i s e l i g i b l e f o ro n ly a f t e r h a vi ng met an age r equ i r emen t , so t he d r i nk i ng ageprob lem q u a l i f i e s a s an SC p robl em f o r American su b j e c t s .

Gr iggs & Cox, 1982Each of 40 su b j e c t s , unde r g radua t es a t t he Un i ve r s i t y of

Fl or id a, were te s t e d on a DAP and an a b s t r a c t problem. Th ei r DAPwas: "I f a person i s dr i nk ing beer , t hen th e person must be over1 9 y e a r s o f a ge . " N in et ee n was t h e l e g a l d r i n k i n g a ge i n F l o r i d a


33/49

a t t h e t i m e of th e exper iment . Before th e DAP , each s ub j e c t wast o l d : " Im ag in e you a r e a p o l i c e o f f i c e r o n d u t y. I t i s your jobt o e n su r e t h a t p e o p l e conform t o c e r t a i n r u l e s . The c a r d s i nf r o n t of you h av e i nf o rm a t io n a b ou t f o u r p e o pl e s i t t i n g a t at a b l e . . ." nd so on. For both thema t ic and a b s t r a c t problemss u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o se l ec t t h e c a r d ( s ) ne c es sa ry t o" d et er m in e wh et he r o r n o t t h e p e o p l e a r e v i o l a t i n g t h e r u l e . "H al f t h e s u b j e c t s we re g i v en t h e DAP f i r s t , h a l f were g iv en t h ea b s t r a c t p roblem f i r s t .

S ev en ty -tw o p e r c e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t s ga ve t h e l o g i c a l l yf a l s i f y i n g a ns we r, ' P & not-Q ' , fo r th e DAP, b ut no su b je c t gavet h i s ans wer f o r t he ab s t r a c t p roblem. Ther e was no t r an s f e r f roma co r r ec t l y s o l ved DAP t o t h e a bs t r ac t p roblem. A l s o, t heperc entag e c or re c t f o r each problem was the same, whether i t camef i r s t o r s econd.

Cox & Griggs , 1982Cox & Griggs , 1982 (Exper iment 1 ) r e p l i c a t e d t h e i r f i n d i n g

o f a c o n t e n t e f f e c t w i th t h e DAP ( t hemat i c : 60%, a b s t r a c t : 4% ).F u rt he r mo re , a l th o u g h th e y a l s o r e p l i c a t e d t h e l a c k of t r a n s f erf rom a co r r ec t DAP t o an ab s t r a c t pr ob lem, t hey d i d f i n d t r a ns f e rf rom the DAP t o th e "appa rel -co lor problem" (ACP): "I f a personi s wear ing blu e then t h e perso n must be over 19." The ACP i s a"s emi N- s oc i a l co n t r ac t p robl em: i t s consequent i s a c u l t u r a l l yt y p i c a l c o s t f o r American s u b j e c t s -- we a r e f a mi l i a r w i t h age-r a t io n e d p r i v i l e g e s -- b u t t h e a n t ec e d e nt i s n o t a r a t i o n e db e n e f i t . I n t e r e s t i n g l y eno ugh, t h e ACP e l i c i t e d a s i z a b l econ t e n t e f f e c t on l y when i t fol low ed t h e DAP, a fu l l - f le dg eds o c i a l c o n tr a ct .


34/49

Griggs & Cox, 1983To s e e i f t h e m a ti c c o nt e n t c o ul d " p r o t e c t n s u b j e c t s a g a i n s t

m a tc h in g b i a s , Yachanin & Tweney had pre se nt ed s ub je c t s wi tht h e m a ti c an d a b s t r a c t ru les whose components had beens y s t e m a t i c a l l y n e ga te d (AA, AN , NA, NN ; se e se c t i on 2 .1 ) . Noneof t h e i r t h e m a t i c r u l e s , i n c l ud i n g t h e AA r u l e s , had f a c i l i t a t e dl o g i c a l pe rf or mance . Gr i ggs & Cox d e c i d ed t o r e op en t h i s i s s u e ,because by 1983 two them at ic problems had been found t h a t cou ldr e l i a b l y e l i c i t f a l s i f y i n g r e s po ns e s fro m American s u b j e c t s : t h eDAP and t h e Se ar s problem (s ee se ct io n 2.4.3 below) . Eachsu bj ec t was g iven only one problem to so lv e . There were fou rthe mat i c (DAP) groups and four a bs t r a c t groups : one group fo re a ch r u l e fo rm (AA, AN, NA, NN) , 20 su b j ec t s pe r g r oup .

A 1 hough Griggs & Cox (Exper iment 2) s ys te ma t i ca l l y negatedt h e components of t h e DAP, t he y pr es e rv e d t h e i r s t r u c t u r e s a ss t a n d a r d s o c i a l c o n t r a c t s . The f o u r th e m a t ic r u l e s w ere:AA: " I f a per son i s dr i nk ing beer , t hen th e person must be over 19"AN : " I f a pe r son i s dr i nk ing beer , t hen th e person must not be under 1NA: " I f a per son i s no t ab s t a i n i ng , t hen t h e pe rson mus t be ove r 19"NN: " I f a per son i s no t ab s t a i n i ng , t hen t h e pe rson mus t no t be under Even though the components have been sys te ma t i ca l l y negate d, i ne ac h ca s e t h e " I f " c l a u s e r e f e r s t o t h e b e n e f i t i n qu e st io n( d r i n k i n g b e e r ) a nd t h e " th en " c l a u s e r e f e r s t o t h e r e q ui re m en tt h a t m ust be met t o be e n t i t l e d t o t h a t b e n e f i t ( b ei n g o ve r 1 9 ) .

Con t r o l g r oups so l ved one of f ou r s i m i l a r l y nega t ed f or ms o fW ason 's ( 1966) o r i g i n a l ab s t r a c t p robl em, " I f a ca r d has a vowe lon one s ide , then it ha s an odd number on th e oth er s id e. " Witht h i s r u l e , s u b j e c t s c a n re co de n e ga te d p h ra s es a s a f f i r m a t i v ep h r a s e s (e . g. , "not odd" t o "even") , j u s t a s t he y c an f o r t h e


35/49

DAP. T h i s i s n o t p o s s i b l e w i t h o r d i n a r y le tt er -n u mb er r u l e s . *N eg at ed c o n d i t i o n a l s a r e f r e q u e n t l y d i f f i c u l t t o u n d er st an d

(Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972, se e 2.1 on Yachanin & Tweney,1 9 8 2 ) . Y e t , i n s p i t e of t h e f a c t t h a t t h r e e of t h e t h em a ti c SCr u l e s h ad n e g a t e d c om po ne nt s, e v e r y SC r u l e e l i c i t e d more 'P &no t -Q ' r e s pons e s t ha n i t s c o rr e sp o n di n g a b s t r a c t r u l e ( s e e T a b l e 2 .2 ) .Tab le 2.2 Gr ig gs & Cox, 1983, Experiment 2 (DAP)

DAP A b s t r a c tAA: 70 1 0 Z=3.87, p


36/49

2.4.3 The S e a r s ProblemThe Se a r s problem was developed by D'Andrade (19 81 ). I t i s

s e t i n a S e a r s s t o r e , and s p e c i f i e s t h e c o n d i t i o n s u nd er which apurchase mu s t be aut hor ize d by th e department manager . I n r e a ll i f e , t h e p u rp o se of s uc h p r o c ed u r es i s t o make s u r e t h a tc u st o me r s o r s a l e s c l e r k s do n o t c h e a t t h e s t o r e by " pa yi ng n f o rg oo ds w i th a bad ch e ck , d e f u n c t o r s t o l e n c r e d i t c a r d s , e t c .Thus, it i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y n i c e example of a s o c i a l c o n t r a c tproblem.

D'Andrade ( r ep or te d i n Rumelhar t & Norman, 1981)D'Andradel s ab s t ra c t and themat ic p rob lems bo th used

p r e s c r i p t i v e r u l e s i n t h e workplace. A s p a r t of your job, you( t h e s u b j e c t ) a r e s u pp os ed t o make s u r e t h e r u l e h a s beenf o l lo w e d . H al f h i s s u b j e c t s w er e g iv e n t h e a b s t r a c t p ro bl em ,ha l f th e the mat i c p roblem ( t h i s re po r t does no t say how manys u b j e c t s we re i n v o lv e d ) .

Both co nd i t io na l s were embedded i n th e t e x t of a s to ry . Int h e a b s t r a c t p r o b l e m , " A s p a r t o f yo ur j o b a s a l a b e l c he ck er a tP ic a ' s Custom Label Factory , you have th e jo b of making s u r e t h a ta l l l a b e l s wi th a vowel p r in te d on one s id e have an odd numberp r i n t e d o n t h e o t h e r s i d e . " I n t h e t h e m a t i c p ro bl em , " A s p a r t o fy ou r j o b a s an a s s i s t a n t a t S e a r s , you h av e t h e j o b o f c he ck in gs a l e s r e c e i p t s t o make s u r e t h a t any s a l e of o ver $30.00 has beenapproved by th e se ct io n manager . (Th is i s a r u l e of t h e s t o r e . ) "

B oth pr ob le ms a r e s e t i n t h e w or kp la ce , b o th u s ep r e s c r i p t i v e r u l e s a n d b o th i nv ok e a " d e t e c t i v e s e t n (Van Duyne,1974) -- t h e s u b j e c t i s a " c h e ck e r" , l o o k in g f o r v i o l a t i o n s of ar u l e . But t h e S e a r s r u l e i s a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t whose v i o l a t i o n


37/49

i n d ic a te s t h e f t -- a cu sto me r ( o r s a l e s c l e r k ) i s not supposed t ot a k e s om ething of g r e a t v a lu e w i th o u t h a vin g p a id i t s c o s t ( a svouchsafed by the s ec t i on manager ) . The a bs t r ac t p robleme x p r e s s e s a p r e s c r i p t i v e r u l e , but not one whose terms arer e c o g n i z a b le c o s t s an d b e n e f i t s . T h i r t e e n p e r ce n t of s u b j e c t sanswered 'P & not-Q ' fo r th e ab s t ra c t p roblem, whereas nea r ly 70%g av e t h i s answer f o r t h e s o c i a l c o n t r a c t p roblem.

Gr iggs & Cox, 1983Gr iggs & C ox 's E xp er im en t 2 i n c lu d e d a c o n d i t i o n i d e n t i c a l

t o t h e i r DAP c o n d i t i o n ( d e s c r i b e d i n 2.4 -2) , e x c e p t t h a t t h e yt e s t e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y n e g a te d S e a r s p ro bl em s. The a b s t r a c tc o n t r o l g r ou p s f o r t h e S e a r s pr ob le ms we re t h e same a s t h o s e f o rt h e DAP.

A s wi th t h e DAP, G ri gg s & Cox sys temat ica l ly nega tedcomponents of an AA S e a r s p ro bl em i n a way t h a t p r e s e r v e d t h e i rs t r u c t u r e s a s s t a n d a r d s o c i a l c o n t r a c t s . To do t h i s , some of t h enega ted components had t o become q u i t e l ong and complic ated,u s i ng b ot h e x p l i c i t ( " n o t n ) and i m p l i c i t ( " w i t h o u t n ) n e g a ti v e s t oc r ea te wha t amounts t o a double nega t ive . The ru le s were:AA: " I f a purchase exceeds $30, then the r ec e i p t must have th es i gn at ur e of th e depar tment manager on th e back."AN: "If a purchase exceeds $30, t hen th e re ce ip t must not bewit ho ut th e s i gn at ur e of th e depar tment manager on the back."NA: " I f a purchase i s n o t l e s s than $30, then the r ec e i p t musthave th e s ig na tu re of th e depar tment manager on th e back."NN : " I f t h e [ s i c ] p ur ch as e i s n o t l e s s th a n $30, t h en t h e r e c e i p tmus t no t be wi th ou t t he s i gn a t u r e of th e depar tment manageron the back. "For a l l f o ur r u l e f or ms , t h e a nt ec ed en t c l a u s e s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h er u l e p e r t a i n s t o h ig h v a lu e p ur ch as es ( l a r g e b e n e f i t ) , w hereast h e c o ns eq ue nt c l a u s e s p e c i f i e s t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n r eq ui re me nt

59


38/49

( v o u ch s a f in g t h a t t h e h i g h c o s t h a s been p a i d ) . Hence a l l f o u rthe mat ic problems a r e STD-SCs. The re s u l t s a r e shown i n Tab le 2 .4.

Tab le 2 .4 Grig gs & Cox, 1983, Experiment 2 (Sears)S e a r s A b s t r a c t

AA : 75 10 2=4 -1 6, p< 000025 ph i= .66AN : 70 35 Z=2.22, p


39/49

"I f you ta ke th e ben ef i t , then you must pay the cos t . "" I f you ta ke th e ben ef i t , then you must not pay th e cos t . ""I f you do no t tak e th e bene f i t , then you must pay th e cos t . "" I f you do not tak e the be ne f i t , then you must no t pay the co s t . "The AN, NA, and NN r u l e s v i o l a t e t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f s o c i a l exchange. *

The id ea l way t o inv es t i ga te de fo rmed so c i a l co n t r ac t s i s t ogene ra te them from a r u l e t h a t has rn i n t h es u b j e c t ' s exper ienc e. Thi s can be done by embedding anu n fa m il i ar r u l e i n a s t o r y t h a t defines i t s t e rm s a s c o s t s andb e n e f i t s , and a r r a n g in g t h o se t e rm s i n a f or ma t t h a t v i o l a t e s t h epr in c i p l es of so c i a l exchange. Deforming an S C r u l e t h a ta c t u a l ly e x i s t s ( l i k e t h e DAP) introduces unfortunate demandc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Su bj ec ts may assume t h e ex perimente r i s t e s t i n gt h e i r knowledge of the ac t ua l ru l e o r l aw.** A l t e rn a t i ve l y , us inga deformed ver s io n of an ac tu a l ru l e may "cue" th e s ub je c t t oref rame i t a s a p ro pe r ( b u t d i f f e r e n t ) s o c i a l c o n t r a c t i n a s c i -f i world , and reason accordingl y . The fu r t he r a cos t /benef itr u l e i s f ro m a n e x p l i c i t , r e a l - l i f e l aw , t h e b e t t e r .

U nfor tuna te ly , the only experiments on deformed socialco n t ra c t s use th e Sea r s prob lem and the DAP (Gr iggs & Cox, 1983,Experiment 1). The deformed DAPs use components of the FloridaDrinking-Age Law, an e x p l i c i t SC r u l e t h a t ac t ua l l y ex is t s .They a re , t he re f o re , e

cosmides_1985_chap2

Documents

Transcript of cosmides_1985_chap2