Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:19:07.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Fundamental Computational Biases of Human Cognition: Heuristics That (Sometimes) Impair Decision Making and Problem Solving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Keith E. Stanovich
Edited by
Janet E. Davidson  and
Robert J. Sternberg
Keith E. Stanovich
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Janet E. Davidson
Affiliation:
Lewis and Clark College, Portland
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Consider the following syllogism. Ask yourself whether it is valid – whether the conclusion follows logically from the two premises:

  1. Premise 1: All living things need water.

  2. Premise 2: Roses need water.

  3. Therefore, Roses are living things.

What do you think? Judge the conclusion either logically valid or invalid before reading on.

If you are like about 70% of the university students who have been given this problem, you will think that the conclusion is valid. And if you did think that it was valid, like 70% of university students who have been given this problem, you would be wrong (Markovits & Nantel, 1989; Sá, West, & Stanovich, 1999; Stanovich & West, 1998c). Premise 1 says that all living things need water, not that all things that need water are living things. So just because roses need water, it doesn't follow from Premise 1 that they are living things. If that is still not clear, it probably will be after you consider the following syllogism with exactly the same structure:

  1. Premise 1: All insects need oxygen.

  2. Premise 2: Mice need oxygen.

  3. Therefore, Mice are insects.

Now it seems pretty clear that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If the logically equivalent “mice” syllogism is solved so easily, why is the “rose” problem so hard? Well for one thing, the conclusion (roses are living things) seems so reasonable and you know it to be true in the real world. And that is the rub.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Psychology of Problem Solving , pp. 291 - 342
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, J. E. (1984). Abstraction is uncooperative. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 14, 165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, J. E. (1991). An optimist's pessimism: Conversation and conjunctions. In E. Eells & T. Maruszewski (Eds.), Probability and rationality: Studies on L. Jonathan Cohen's philosophy of science (pp. 251–282). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi
Alloy, L. B., & Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112–149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreassen, P. (1987). On the social psychology of the stock market: Aggregate attributional effects and the regressiveness of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badcock, C. (2000). Evolutionary psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Baldwin, D. A. (2000). Interpersonal understanding fuels knowledge acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 181–198CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar-Hillel, M., & Falk, R. (1982). Some teasers concerning conditional probabilities. Cognition, 11, 109–122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind. New York: Oxford University Press
Baron, J. (1993). Morality and rational choice. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. (1998). Judgment misguided: Intuition and error in public decision making. New York: Oxford University Press
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Baron-Cohen, S. (1998). Does the study of autism justify minimalist innate modularity? Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, R. A., & Dunbar, R. (1997). Evolution of the social brain. In A. Whiten & R. W. Byrne (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations (pp. 240–263). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
Belsky, G., & Gilovich, T. (1999). Why smart people make big money mistakes – And how to correct them: Lessons from the new science of behavioral economics. New York: Simon & Schuster
The benevolence of self-interest. (1998, December 12). The Economist, 80
Bereiter, C. (1997). Situated cognition and how to overcome it. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 3–12). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. New York: Oxford University Press
Brase, G. L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1998). Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: The role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, schooling, and society. American Psychologist, 52, 1046–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U., McClelland, P., Wethington, E., Moen, P., & Ceci, S. J. (1996). The state of Americans. New York: Free Press
Broniarczyk, S., & Alba, J. W. (1994). Theory versus data in prediction and correlation tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 117–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brothers, L. (1990). The social brain: A project for integrating primate behaviour and neuropsychology in a new domain. Concepts in Neuroscience, 1, 27–51Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Bruner, J. (1996). Frames for thinking: Ways of making meaning. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 93–105). New York: Cambridge University Press
Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisitions of the algorithms of social life: A domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Buss, D. M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 55, 15–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (Eds.). (1988). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 276–298CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrithers, M. (1995). Stories in the social and mental life of people. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence (pp. 261–277). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
Cartwright, J. (2000). Evolution and human behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Chapman, L., & Chapman, J. (1967). Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 193–204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, L., & Chapman, J. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 271–280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, M. (1993). Everyday reasoning and the revision of belief. In J. M. Puckett & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Mechanisms of everyday cognition (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391–416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Cooper, W. S. (1989). How evolutionary biology challenges the classical theory of rational choice. Biology and Philosophy, 4, 457–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 163–205). New York: Oxford University Press
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: Toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science. Cognition, 50, 41–77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, D. D. (1996). Evidence for the innateness of deontic reasoning. Mind & Language, 11, 160–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich
Dawes, R. M. (1989). Statistical criteria for establishing a truly false consensus effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1990). The potential nonfalsity of the false consensus effect. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights into decision making (pp. 179–199). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Dawes, R. M. (1991). Probabilistic versus causal thinking. In D. Cicchetti & W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl (Vol. 1, pp. 235–264). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene (new edition, 1989). New York: Oxford University Press
Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. New York: Oxford University Press
Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton
Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster
Dennett, D. C. (1996). Kinds of minds: Toward an understanding of consciousness. New York: Basic Books
Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47, 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillard, A. (1999). For the time being. Toronto: Penguin Books Canada
Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. (1990). Inattention to P(H) and to P(D/∼ H): A converging operation. Acta Psychologica, 75, 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominowski, R. L. (1995). Content effects in Wason's selection task. In S. E. Newstead & J. S. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking and reasoning (pp. 41–65). Hove, UK: Erlbaum
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's minds. London: Fontana Paperbacks
Donaldson, M. (1993). Human minds: An exploration. New York: Viking Penguin
Dulany, D. E., & Hilton, D. J. (1991). Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9, 85–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. (1998). Theory of mind and the evolution of language. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language (pp. 92–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S., Donovan, S., & Denes-Raj, V. (1999). The missing link in the paradox of the Linda conjunction problem: Beyond knowing and thinking of the conjunction rule, the intrinsic appeal of heuristic processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1982). The psychology of deductive reasoning. London: Routledge
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. London: Erlbaum Associates
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996). Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Barston, J., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11, 295–306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, UK: Erlbaum
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1999). Explicit representations in hypothetical thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 763–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Over, D. E., & Manktelow, K. (1993). Reasoning, decision making and rationality. Cognition, 49, 165–187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, R. (1992). A closer look at the probabilities of the notorious three prisoners. Cognition, 43, 197–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1988). The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychological Research, 50, 123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, O. (1996). Self expressions: Mind, morals, and the meaning of life. New York: Oxford University Press
Floden, R. E., Buchmann, M., & Schwille, J. R. (1987). Breaking with everyday experience. Teacher's College Record, 88, 485–506Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press
Frank, R. H., & Cook, P. J. (1995). The winner-take-all society. New York: Free Press
Friedrich, J. (1993). Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: A reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena. Psychological Review, 100, 298–319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukuyama, F. (1999). The great disruption: Human nature and the reconstitution of social order. New York: Free Press
Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garb, H. N., Florio, C. M., & Grove, W. M. (1998). The validity of the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Psychological Science, 9, 402–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. C., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2000). Evolutionary developmental psychology. Child Development, 71, 57–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebauer, G., & Laming, D. (1997). Rational choices in Wason's selection task. Psychological Research, 60, 284–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases.”European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1993). The bounded rationality of probabilistic mental models. In K. Manktelow & D. Over (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 284–313). London: Routledge
Gigerenzer, G. (1996a). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological Review, 103, 592–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1996b). Rationality: Why social context matters. In P. B. Baltes & U. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 319–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbolting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press
Goody, E. N. (Ed.). (1995). Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Goody, J. (1977). The domestication of the savage mind. New York: Cambridge University Press
Gordon, R. A. (1997). Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, 24, 203–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granberg, D. (1995). The Monte Hall dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 711–723Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3., Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press
Griggs, R. A. (1989). To “see” or not to “see”: That is the selection task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 517–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griggs, R. A., & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 407–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardman, D. (1998). Does reasoning occur on the selection task? A comparison of relevance-based theories. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 39, 1372–1388Google Scholar
Hastie, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). The concept of accuracy in social judgment. In D. Bar-Tal & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 193–208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The conjunction fallacy revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 275–3053.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (2000). Judgment and decision making in social context: Discourse processes and rational inference. In T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes, & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp. 651–676). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
Hoch, S. J. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (2nd ed). Chicago: Open Court
Humphrey, N. (1976). The social function of intellect. In P. P. G. Bateson & R. A. Hinde (Eds.), Growing points in ethology (pp. 303–317). London: Faber & Faber
Humphrey, N. (1986). The inner eye. London: Faber & Faber
Hunt, E. (1995). Will we be smart enough? A cognitive analysis of the coming workforce. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Hunt, E. (1999). Intelligence and human resources: Past, present, and future. In P. Ackerman, P. Kyllonen, & R. Richards (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Jepson, C., Krantz, D., & Nisbett, R. (1983). Inductive reasoning: Competence or skill? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 109–135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolly, A. (1966). Lemur social behaviour and primate intelligence. Science, 153, 501–506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2000). A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 681–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11, 123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582–591CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press
Kelley, D. (1990). The art of reasoning. New York: Norton
Kim, J. (1994, September). Watch out for investing newsletters luring you with outdated returns. Money Magazine, 12–13Google Scholar
King, R. N., & Koehler, D. J. (2000). Illusory correlations in graphological inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 336–348Google ScholarPubMed
Kirby, K. N. (1994). Probabilities and utilities of fictional outcomes in Wason's four-card selection task. Cognition, 51, 1–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, D. H., & Fauth, J. (1997). Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 470–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 28–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (1993). Inductive inference and its natural ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Krantz, D. H. (1981). Improvements in human reasoning and an error in L. J. Cohen's. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 340–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J., & Zeiger, J. (1993). Social categorization and the truly false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 670–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 74–103Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1996). Is good thinking scientific thinking? In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 261–281). New York: Cambridge University Press
Kummer, H., Daston, L., Gigerenzer, G., & Silk, J. B. (1997). The social intelligence hypothesis. In P. Weingart, S. D. Mitchell, P. J. Richerson, & S. Maasen (Eds.), Human by nature: Between biology and the social sciences (pp. 157–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, B. (1997). Our guys: The Glen Ridge rape and the secret life of the perfect suburb. Berkeley: University of California Press
Levin, I. P., Wasserman, E. A., & Kao, S. F. (1993). Multiple methods of examining biased information use in contingency judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 228–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In E. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction (pp. 221–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
Liberman, N., & Klar, Y. (1996). Hypothesis testing in Wason's selection task: Social exchange cheating detection or task understanding. Cognition, 58, 127–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1999). Projective measures of personality and psychopathology: How well do they work? Skeptical Inquirer, 23(5), 32–39Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Macdonald, R. R., & Gilhooly, K. J. (1990). More about Linda or conjunctions in context. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, B. G. (1999). A random walk down Wall Street. New York: W. W. Norton
Manktelow, K. I. (1999). Reasoning & thinking. Hove, UK: Psychology Press
Manktelow, K. I., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (1979). Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or non-effect? British Journal of Psychology, 70, 477–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manktelow, K. I., & Over, D. E. (1991). Social roles and utilities in reasoning with deontic conditionals. Cognition, 39, 85–105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manktelow, K. I., Sutherland, E., & Over, D. E. (1995). Probabilistic factors in deontic reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking, and cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with risk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Markovits, H., & Nantel, G. (1989). The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions. Memory & Cognition, 17, 11–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCain, R. A. (1991). A linguistic conception of rationality. Social Science Information, 30(2), 233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, T. (2000, September 16). Navigating the shark-eat-shark world of “compassionate” airfares. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), T5
Messer, W. S., & Griggs, R. A. (1993). Another look at Linda. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. (1985). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster
Mitchell, P., Robinson, E. J., Isaacs, J. E., & Nye, R. M. (1996). Contamination in reasoning about false belief: An instance of realist bias in adults but not children. Cognition, 59, 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of mind: The cognitive origins of art and science. London: Thames and Hudson
Neimark, E. (1987). Adventures in thinking. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Newstead, S. E., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (Eds.). (1995). Perspectives on thinking and reasoning. Hove, UK: Erlbaum
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know – and sometimes misjudge – what others know: Imputing one's own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, R. S., Baddeley, A., & Freeman, B. (1987). Are people's estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know? Acta Psychologica, 64, 245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Nozick, R. (1993). The nature of rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1995). Theories of reasoning and the computational explanation of everyday inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 121–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Rational explanation of the selection task. Psychological Review, 103, 381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world. Hove, UK: Psychology Press
Oaksford, M., Chater, N., Grainger, B., & Larkin, J. (1997). Optimal data selection in the reduced array selection task (RAST). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 441–458Google Scholar
Oatley, K. (1992). Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Oatley, K. (1996). Emotions, rationality, and informal reasoning. In J. V. Oakhill & A. Garnham (Eds.), Mental models in cognitive science: Essays in honor of Phil Johnson-Laird (pp. 1–22). Hove, UK: Psychology Press
Oatley, K. (1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 3, 101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1986). Intelligence and literacy: The relationships between intelligence and the technologies of representation and communication. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence (pp. 338–360). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton
Plotkin, H. (1998). Evolution in mind: An introduction to evolutionary psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Politzer, G., & Noveck, I. A. (1991). Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, P., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1987). Content and context effects in reasoning. American Journal of Psychology, 100, 41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Reber, A. S. (1992a). The cognitive unconscious: An evolutionary perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 1, 93–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1992b). An evolutionary context for the cognitive unconscious. Philosophical Psychology, 5, 33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. (1988). Rationality: A philosophical inquiry into the nature and rationale of reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Sá, W., & Stanovich, K. E. (2001). The domain specificity and generality of mental contamination: Accuracy and projection in mental content judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 281–302CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sá, W., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. (1991). Tell me a story. New York: Scribner's
Schustack, M. W., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Shaffer, L. (1981). The growth and limits of recipe knowledge. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 2, 71–83Google Scholar
Shefrin, H., & Statman, M. (1986). How not to make money in the stock market. Psychology Today, 20, 53–57Google Scholar
Shiller, R. (1987). The volatility of stock market prices. Science, 235, 33–37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shontz, F., & Green, P. (1992). Trends in research on the Rorschach: Review and recommendations. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 1, 149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigel, I. E. (1993). The centrality of a distancing model for the development of representational competence. In R. Cocking & K. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance (pp. 141–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Skyrms, B. (1996). The evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slugoski, B. R., & Wilson, A. E. (1998). Contribution of conversation skills to the production of judgmental errors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 575–6013.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998a). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 193–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998b). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998c). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998d). Who uses base rates and P(D/∼ H)? An analysis of individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 28, 161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success. American Psychologist, 52, 1030–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.). (1986). Practical intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Stevenson, R. J. (1993). Rationality and reality. In K. Manktelow & D. Over (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 61–82). London: Routledge
Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. (1995). Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 613–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, S. (1992). Irrationality: The enemy within. London: Constable
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Thagard, P., & Nisbett, R. E. (1983). Rationality and charity. Philosophy of Science, 50, 250–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (1992). The winner's curse: Paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. New York: Free Press
Thomas, M., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1998). Quo vadis modularity in the 1990s? Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition and the evolution of culture. In J. Langer & M. Killen (Eds.), Piaget, evolution, and development (pp. 221–245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press
Tsimpli, I., & Smith, N. (1998). Modules and quasi-modules: Language and theory of mind in a polyglot savant. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 193–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Updegrave, W. L. (1995, August). Why funds don't do better. Money Magazine, 58–65Google Scholar
Voss, J., Perkins, D. & Segal J. (Eds.). (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). Paradoxes of gambling behavior. Hove, UK: Erlbaum
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135–151). Harmonsworth, UK: Penguin
Whiten, A., & Byrne, R. W. (Eds.). (1997). Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Widiger, T., & Schilling, M. (1980). Towards a construct validation of the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 450–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolford, G., Miller, M. B., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). The left hemisphere's role in hypothesis formation. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 1–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, J. M., Nezworski, T., & Stejskal, W. J. (1996). The comprehensive system for the Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7, 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×