Evaluations of causal and conditional hypotheses

This study examined evaluations of causal and conditional hyptheses on the basis of individual exemplars. Subjects were presented scenes describing something that is malfunctioning and is taken to an expert. The expert makes a causal diagnosis and a prediction concerning an outcome following treatme...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology Human experimental psychology, 1986-08, Vol.38 (3), p.493-512
Main Authors: O'Brien, David P., Costa, Gerard, Overton, Willis F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Cognition. Intelligence
Concept Formation
Diagnosis
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Problem Solving
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Set (Psychology)
Theories
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study examined evaluations of causal and conditional hyptheses on the basis of individual exemplars. Subjects were presented scenes describing something that is malfunctioning and is taken to an expert. The expert makes a causal diagnosis and a prediction concerning an outcome following treatment. Four types of outcome evidence were provided: (1) treatment is provided and the problem is eliminated; (2) treatment is not provided and the problem is eliminated; (3) treatment is provided and the problem is not eliminated; and (4) treatment is not provided and the problem is not eliminated. Subjects were required to judge whether individual exemplars prove the diagnosis, disprove the diagnosis, or fail to test the diagnosis. A second form of problem presented the same scenes but required evaluation of the conditional prediction. A third form of problem did not present the causal scenes; the subject evaluated the conditional predication and no context. Three content domains were used: medical, mechanical, and arbitrary. There were three general results: (1) diagnoses were judged as less open to testing than predictive conditional hypotheses; (2) medical problems were judged differently from mechanical problems; and (3) problems lacking meaningful content or contexts led to more primitive response strategies.
ISSN:0272-4987
1464-0740
DOI:10.1080/14640748608401610