UNSPECIFIED (1996) Rational explanation of the selection task. PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 103 (2). pp. 381-391. ISSN 0033-295X

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

M. Oaksford and N. Chater (O&C; 1994) presented the first quantitative model of P. C. Wason's (1966, 1968) selection task in which performance is rational. J. St B T Evans and D. E. Over (1996) reply that O&C's account is normatively incorrect and cannot model K. N. Kirby's(1994b) or P. Pollard and J. St B T Evans's (1983) data. It is argued that an equivalent measure satisfies their normative concerns and that a modification of O&C's model accounts for their empirical concerns. D. Laming (1996) argues that O&C made unjustifiable psychological assumptions and that a ''correct'' Bayesian analysis agrees with logic. It is argued that O&C's model makes normative and psychological sense and that Laming's analysis is not Bayesian. A. Almor and S. A. Sloman (1996) argue that O&C cannot explain their data. It is argued that Almor and Sloman's data do not bear on O&C's model because they alter the nature of the task. It is concluded that O&C's model remains the most compelling and comprehensive account of the selection task.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Journal or Publication Title:	PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW
Publisher:	AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
ISSN:	0033-295X
Date:	April 1996
Volume:	103
Number:	2
Number of Pages:	11
Page Range:	pp. 381-391
Publication Status:	Published
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/18863

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item