This paper raises some methodological problems in the dual process explanation provided by Wada and Nittono for their 2004 results using the Wason selection task. We maintain that the Nittono rethinking approach is weak and that it should be refined to grasp better the evidence of analytic processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EvansJ. St. B. T. (1984) Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 451–468.
2.
EvansJ. St. B. T. (1989) Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
3.
EvansJ. St. B. T. (1996) Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 223–240.
4.
EvansJ. St. B. T. (1998) Inspection times, relevance, and reasoning: A reply to Roberts. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 811–814.
5.
EvansJ. St. B. T.OverD. E. (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychological Press.
6.
EvansJ. St. B. T.OverD. E. (1997) Rationality in reasoning: The case of deductive competence. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, 3–38.
7.
FeeneyA.HandleyS. J. (2000) The suppression of q card selections: Evidence for deductive inference in Wason's selection task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1224–1243.
8.
GeorgeC. (1990) Dissociation des difficultés dans la tâche de sélection de Wason. L'Année Psychologique, 90, 169–193.
9.
GrossetN.BarrouilletP.MisuracaR. (2004) Développement du raisonnement conditionnel et tâche de sélection de Wason. L'Année Psychologique, 104, 51–81.
10.
HandleyS. J.FeeneyA.HarperC. (2002) Alternative antecedents, probabilities, and the suppression of fallacies in Wason's selection task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 799–818.
11.
WadaK.NittonoH. (2004) Cancel and rethink in the Wason selection task: Further evidence for the heuristic-analytic dual process theory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 1315–1325.
