ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Thinking in opposites improves hypothesis testing performance in Wason's rule-discovery task.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate whether hypothesis testing can be improved by a simple prompt to "think in opposites," a strategy suggested by a growing body of literature as being beneficial in various reasoning and problem-solving contexts. We employed Wason's rule-discovery task and designed three experimental conditions: training that prompted an analysis of the properties characterizing the initial seed triple, training that prompted the same analysis but subsequently required the identification of the opposites of each property for use in the testing phase, and a no-prompt condition. Thinking in opposites nearly doubled the success rate and led to a more frequent discovery of the rule on the first attempt. This improved efficacy was due not to the testing of more triples but to less reiteration of the same hypothesis and a greater awareness of the ascending-descending critical dimension. We discuss how thinking in opposites appears to stimulate counterfactual thinking, with respect to previous literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.