Positive and Negative Hypothesis Testing by Cooperative Groups

Abstract

In a rule induction problem positive hypothesis tests select evidence that the tester expects to be an example of the correct rule if the hypothesis is correct, whereas negative hypothesis tests select evidence that the tester expects to be a nonexample if the hypothesis is correct. Previous research indicates the general effectiveness of a positive test strategy for individuals, but there has been very little research with cooperative groups. We extend the analysis of Klayman and Ha (Psychological Review, 1987) of ambiguous verification or conclusive falsification of five possible types of hypotheses by positive and negative tests by emphasizing the importance of further examples following hypothesis tests. In two experiments four-person cooperative groups solved rule induction problems by proposing a hypothesis and selecting evidence to test the hypothesis on each of four arrays on each trial. In different conditions the groups were instructed to use different combinations of positive and negative tests on the four arrays. Positive tests were more likely to lead to further examples than negative tests, and the proportion of correct hypotheses corresponded to the proportion of positive tests, in both experiments. We suggest that positive tests are more effective than negative hypothesis tests in generating further evidence, and thus in inducing the correct rule, in experimental rule induction tasks with a criterion of certainty imposed by the researcher.