Osman Magda, Stavy Ruth
Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, England.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Dec;13(6):935-53. doi: 10.3758/bf03213907.
Theories of adult reasoning propose that reasoning consists of two functionally distinct systems that operate under entirely different mechanisms. This theoretical framework has been used to account for a wide range of phenomena, which now encompasses developmental research on reasoning and problem solving. We begin this review by contrasting three main dual-system theories of adult reasoning (Evans & Over, 1996; Sloman, 1996; Stanovich & West, 2000) with a well-established developmental account that also incorporates a dual-system framework (Brainerd & Reyna, 2001). We use developmental studies of the formation and application of intuitive rules in science and mathematics to evaluate the claims that these theories make. Overall, the evidence reviewed suggests that what is crucial to understanding how children reason is the saliency of the features that are presented within a task. By highlighting the importance of saliency as a way of understanding reasoning, we aim to provide clarity concerning the benefits and limitations of adopting a dual-system framework to account for evidence from developmental studies of intuitive reasoning.
成人推理理论提出，推理由两个功能截然不同的系统组成，它们以完全不同的机制运行。这一理论框架已被用于解释广泛的现象，如今这一范围涵盖了推理和问题解决的发展性研究。在本综述中，我们首先将成人推理的三种主要双系统理论（埃文斯和奥弗，1996；斯洛曼，1996；斯坦诺维奇和韦斯特，2000）与一个同样纳入双系统框架的成熟发展性理论（布雷纳德和雷纳，2001）进行对比。我们利用科学和数学中直觉规则形成与应用的发展性研究来评估这些理论所提出的主张。总体而言，所审查的证据表明，理解儿童推理方式的关键在于任务中呈现特征的显著性。通过强调显著性作为理解推理方式的重要性，我们旨在明确采用双系统框架来解释直觉推理发展性研究证据的益处和局限性。
