Abstract
Claims that college students as well as scientists follow a strategy of confirmation bias in rule-discovery tasks are challenged in this study. A more fine-grained analysis of inquiry behaviour in a standard rule discovery task indicates that the best predictor of a reasoner's success is the use of a rational strategy called `conterfactual inference'. Contrary to earlier results, a disconfirmation strategy fails to distinguish between solvers and non-solvers. More strikingly, evidence shows that over half of the unsuccessful adults employ the same counterfactual reasoning which bears a superficial resemblance to confirmation bias. This normal inquiry behaviour is described in terms of a process model, and supports views in the philosophy of science that advocate the use of multiple hypotheses in testing theories. The data present a challenge to educators, cognitive scientists and psychologists regarding their selection of an `expert' discovery strategy for the purpose of guiding students. Training in counterfactual reasoning is advised, since it may make explicit an implicit strategy already in use.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
