Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Using dual-process theory and analogical transfer to explain facilitation on a hypothetico-deductive reasoning task.

Cynthia S Koenig1, Richard D Platt, Richard A Griggs

  • 1Department of Psychology, St. Mary's College of Maryland, 18952 E. Fisher Rd., St. Mary's City, MD 20686, USA. cskoenig@smcm.edu

Psychological Research
|April 6, 2006
PubMed
Summary

This study examined reasoning on the SARS THOG problem. Findings suggest an attentional heuristic (System 1 reasoning) explains task facilitation, not logical analysis (System 2 reasoning), as analogical transfer did not occur.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Analogical transfer in the THOG task.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2004
Same author

The nonexistent common core.

The American psychologist·2002
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human Reasoning
  • Dual-Process Theory

Background:

  • Investigating competing explanations for facilitation in hypothetico-deductive reasoning tasks.
  • Examining the roles of System 1 (heuristic) and System 2 (logical) reasoning in problem-solving.
  • Utilizing the SARS version of the THOG problem, a task designed to assess reasoning abilities.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To differentiate between logical analysis (System 2) and attentional heuristic (System 1) explanations for SARS THOG problem facilitation.
  • To determine if participants abstract and transfer the solution principle of the THOG task.
  • To evaluate the utility of analogical transfer versus facilitation as a measure of problem comprehension.

Main Methods:

  • Employed the analogical transfer paradigm to study reasoning processes.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Compared performance on SARS source problems with subsequent analogical transfer tasks.
  • Analyzed facilitation rates and the occurrence of analogical transfer to distinguish between reasoning systems.

    • Main Results:

    • Significant facilitation was observed for the SARS source problems (68% and 82% correct).
    • Crucially, significant analogical transfer of the solution principle did not occur.
    • The absence of transfer indicates that participants did not fully comprehend or generalize the underlying logic.

    Conclusions:

    • The results support the attentional heuristic explanation (System 1 reasoning) proposed by Griggs et al.
    • Facilitation on the SARS THOG problem is attributed to heuristic processing rather than deep logical analysis.
    • Analogical transfer is a more robust criterion than facilitation for assessing genuine problem understanding in reasoning tasks.