Is domain-specific reasoning in conditional reasoning tasks really domain-specific?

1. Is domain-specific reasoning in conditional reasoning tasks really domain-specific? The 2nd London Reasoning Workshop28-29/08/2007 Akira Nakagaki (Waseda University)

2. Three theories of domain-specific conditional reasoning • Theory of Pragmatic Reasoning Schemas (Cheng & Holyoak, 1985; Cheng, Holyoak et al., 1986) • Social Contract Theory (Cosmides, 1989) • Deontic Reasoning Theory (Manktelow & Over,1991, 1995)

3. Purchase Desk　＄150 Purchase Desk　＄150 Purchase Chair ＄40 Purchase Chair ＄40 signature ________ signature ________ signature ________ signature ________ Peter Wason （ｐ） （ｐ） （￢ｐ） （￢ｐ） （ｑ） （ｑ） （￢ｑ） （￢ｑ） Four Receipts used in Sears Task by D’Andrade (adapted from Rumelhart 1980) Four Receipts used in Sears Task by D’Andrade (adapted from Rumelhart 1980) How to Explain a “Sears” task（D’Andrade cited in Rumelhart 1980） • Rule: If any purchase exceeds ＄100, then the receipt must have the signature of the departmental manager on the back (The manager is called Peter Wason) . • Task: Which card or cards do you have to turn over in order to check whether they obey or violate the rule. Peter Wason

4. People reason using pragmatic reasoning schemas which are abstract knowledge structures induced from ordinary life experiences such as “permission,”“causation,” etc. PRS consists of a set of generalized, context-sensitive rules defined and evoked in terms of goals of actions and their relationships. The permission schema describes a type of regulation in which taking a particular action requires satisfaction of a certain precondition. Rule1: If the action is to be taken, then the precondition must be satisfied. Rule2: ・・・not to be taken, ・・・need not be satisfied. Rule3: If the precondition is satisfied, then the action may be taken. Rule4: ・・・ is not satisfied, ・・・must not be taken. Theory ofPragmatic Reasoning Schemas(Cheng & Hollyoak, 1985, Cheng, Hollyoak et al., 1986)

5. typhoid hepatitis cholera typhoid hepatitis （￢ｐ） （ｐ） （ｑ） （￢ｑ） Four forms presented in PRT （Cheng & Holyoak, 1985 Experiment 1） A Typical Task of PRS（Cheng & Holyoak, 1985） • Regulation: If a form says, “ENTERING” on one side, then the other side includes cholera among the list of diseases. Rationale: The form lists any inoculations the passenger has had in the past 6 months. This is to ensure that entering passengers are protected against the disease. • Task: In order to check if the regulation is being followed, which of the forms below would you need to turn over. ENTERING TRANSIT typhoid hepatitis cholera （￢ｑ） ENTERING

6. The“look for cheaters" algorithm is one of the built-in algorithms, evoked in social contract context and urges humans to detect cheaters in cost-benefit representations Social Contract Theory(Cosmides, 1989) • In order to successfully engage in social exchange, humans have the built-in algorithms that govern how humans reason about social exchange. • These algorithms in human reasoning are evolved through natural selection and produce and operate on cost-benefit representations of exchange interactions.

7. Benefit Accepted Benefit NOT Accepted Cost Paid Cost NOT Paid （ｐ） （￢ｐ） （ｑ） （￢ｑ） Four Cards presented in SSC A Typical Task in Social Contract Context（Cosmides,1985） • Rule１(Standard Social Contract）: ｐ ⇒ ｑ If you take the benefit, then you pay the cost. • Rule２(Switched Social Contract）: ｑ ⇒ ｐ If you pay the cost, then you take the benefit. • Task: Indicate only those card(s) you definitely need to turn over to see if any of these people are breaking this law.

8. Deontic reasoning is what we are doing when we are trying to decide which action we must or may perform. It is different from deductive reasoning and highly dependent on social, pragmatic and subjective factors including subjective utilities or probabilities. What subjects do in deontic selection tasks is to look for possible violations or failures to conform to the rule. Four possible outcomes in which there can be a failure to conform to the rule in some sense Case1: The agent sees p is true but does not allow q (unfair agent). Case2: The agent does not see p is true but allow q (weak agent). Case3: The actor makes p true but does not make q true (self-denying actor). Case4: The actor does not make p true but makes q true (cheating actor). Deontic Reasoning Theory(Manktelow & Over,1991,1995)

9. Tidied the room Not tidied the room Went out to play Not went out to play （￢ｑ） （ｑ） （ｐ） （￢ｐ） Four cards presented in DRT A Typical Task in DRT（Manktelow & Over, 1991） • Rule given by the mother to her son : If you tidy your room, then you may go out to play. (p⇒q) • Task in Case１( Actor’s perspective）: Select only those cards which would show whether the mother had broken the rule. • Task in Case4 ( Agent’s perspective）: Select only those cards which would show whether the boy had broken the rule.

10. Statement: If a card has E on the face, then it has 8 on the back. (p ⇒ q） Task: Which card or cards do you have to turn over in order to decide whether the statement is true or false? Hypothetico-deductive reasoning Very difficult task (usually around 10% correct) Selection patterns: selection p, q (46%), selection p (33%), selection p,q, ￢q (7%), selection p, ￢q (4%) （Johnson-Laird & Wason 1970） E K 8 5 （￢ｑ） （ｐ） （￢ｐ） （ｑ） Four Cards presented in AST Abstract Selection Tasks(Wason, 1966)

11. E K 8 5 （￢ｑ） （ｐ） （￢ｐ） （ｑ） Four cards presented in AST Abstract Selection Tasks with negative conditionals (Evans, 1972) • StatementⅠ: If a card has E on the face, then it has 8 on the back. (p ⇒ q) • StatementⅡ: If a card has E, it has not 8.(p ⇒ ￢q) • StatementⅢ: If a card has not E, it has 8.(￢p ⇒ q) • Task: Which card or cards do you have to turn over in order to decide whether the statement is true or false?

12. Matching Bias in Abstract Selection Tasks (Evans, 1972) • Participants tend to select the cards whose symbols correspond to those mentioned in the statement irrespective of the position of negation.

13. What is happening in PRS is structurally the same as the matching bias in p ⇒￢q . Card selection is guided by attention to a violator of the rule in PRS，whereas it is guided by attention to a counterexample inp⇒￢q. Both phenomena are an effect of cognitive prégnance. Comparison of effects between Reasoningby PRS and M Bias in p⇒￢q

14. What is happening in standard and switched versions of SCT is structurally the same as M bias in p ⇒￢q and￢ p ⇒ q . Unchanging selection is caused by constancy of the violator in the rules of SCT in spite of exchanging p and q，whereas it is caused by constancy of prégnance in both statements of AST in spite of shifting negation. Comparison of effects between Reasoning inSCTand M Bias in AST

15. What is happening in actor’s and agent’s versions of DRT is structurally the same as two types of selection in￢ p ⇒ q . Mutually exclusive selection is caused by shifting perspective in DRT，whereas it is caused by shifting phase between the modal selection and the logical selection in ￢ p ⇒ q . Comparison of effects between Reasoning inDRT and in￢p ⇒ q

16. What is happening in actor’s and agent’s versions of DRT is structurally the same as M bias in p ⇒￢q and￢ p ⇒ q . Shifting perspective in the same deontic rule produces mutually exclusive selection，in this case, reciprocal selection, whereas shifting negation in p ⇒￢q and￢ p ⇒ q, that is, reciprocal conditionalsproduce the same selection. Comparison of effects between Reasoning inDRT and M Bias in AST

17. Conclusion • From the structural point of view, major findings in domain-specific (or thematic) conditional reasoning are the same as phenomena characteristic of abstract conditional reasoning. • Domain-specific reasoning is not domain-specific but one of the various manifestations of domain-general reasoning. • The cognitive system in charge of conditional reasoning does not consist of a heterogeneous mixture of logical elements, but of an interrelated structure which transforms itself as a whole.

18. Purchase Desk　＄150 Purchase Desk　＄150 Purchase Chair ＄40 Purchase Chair ＄40 signature ________ signature ________ signature ________ signature ________ Peter Wason （ｐ） （ｐ） （￢ｐ） （￢ｐ） （ｑ） （ｑ） （￢ｑ） （￢ｑ） Four Receipts used in Sears Task by D’Andrade (adapted from Rumelhart 1980) Four Receipts used in Sears Task by D’Andrade (adapted from Rumelhart 1980) How to Explain a “Sears” task（D’Andrade cited in Rumelhart 1980） • Rule: If any purchase exceeds ＄100, then the receipt must have the signature of the departmental manager on the back (The manager is called Peter Wason) . • Task: Which card or cards do you have to turn over in order to check whether they obey or violate the rule. Peter Wason Martin Braine