成本—收益结构条件推理的心理学研究
|
摘要
华生选择任务（也称四卡任务）中的“内容效应”自发现以来，引起了研究者的广泛兴趣，但许多研究结果并不一致，有时甚至相互矛盾。为了解释“内容效应”这一现象，先后涌现出诸多理论观点或模型，但这些理论似乎总存在着某些不足。Cosmides&Tooby从进化论角度，以一个全新的视角对四卡任务中的“内容效应”进行了分析并认为，许多理论之所以对“内容效应”解释失败，是由于这些理论的基础假设——同一认知加工过程控制着不同领域的推理是错误的。
基于进化心理学角度提出的社会契约理论认为，人类心理是人类所遇到的最复杂的自然现象，是进化过程的产物，包含了专门针对社会交换的特定推理机制。社会交换在人类进化过程中是一个至关重要的领域，我们所拥有社会契约运算法则操纵着成本－收益表征，因为成本-收益表征在社会交换中是能够被理解的最高水平的抽象过程。为了便于对社会交换进行推理，人们非常擅于侦查欺骗的程序是直接编入到我们的达尔文主义的运算法则中去，社会契约理论不仅对数据提供了最节俭的解释，而且从进化理论来看，其假定某些天生的运算法则是目的特定性和内容依赖性也是极其节俭的，社会契约理论被认为是至今对“内容效应”更为有效的解释之一，是在实验水平上能解释内容效应的唯一候选理论。尽管该理论得到了一系列实验证据的支持，但也遭受了不少批评，并且还存在许多有待解决的问题：如标准社会契约规则与转换社会契约规则是否存在差异、人们为什么会在成本-收益结构社会交换条件推理上选择利他主义卡片，更为重要的是，人们对成本-收益结构条件推理是否仅仅能用社会契约理论加以解释，或者说仅仅是领域特定进化的结果等。国内外对此研究相对较少，因此加强对该领域的研究对于揭示人们的推理、乃至决策的认知规律具有重要的理论和实践意义。
本研究主要进行了五个研究七个实验，分别考察了：1）指导语对成本-收益结构条件推理的影响；2）专家与新手在成本-收益结构条件推理上的差异；3）标准与转换社会契约规则的差异及其原因；4）在成本-收益结构条件推理上的利他主义选择；5）成本-收益结构条件推理的发展趋势。
本研究主要获得了以下结论：
1）证伪指导语更有助于改善被试在成本-收益结构内容条件推理上的作业成绩；
2）专家与新手在成本-收益结构条件推理上的社会契约作答差异不显著；
3）与不熟悉性的社会契约问题相比，熟悉的社会契约问题作业成绩更好；
4）标准社会契约规则的作业成绩好于转换社会契约规则的作业成绩；
5）被试在转换社会契约规则问题比在标准社会契约规则问题上更倾向于选择利他主义卡片组合；
6）与美国被试相比，中国被试更多选择利他主义卡片组合，这可能是中外文化差异造成的结果，但同为中国被试的汉维族间差异不显著；
7）从儿童期开始直到成年晚期人们的社会契约推理能力一直处于上升阶段，成年期是人生推理能力发展突飞猛进的时期；
8）对标准社会契约问题而言，成年早期是人们推理能力发展的最高峰；但对转换社会契约问题来说，成年中期是人们推理能力发展的最高峰；社会规则契约问题的最佳推理成绩发生在成年早期；个人规则契约问题的最佳推理成绩出现在成年中期。
这一系列实验结果表明，社会契约理论可以部分地解释成本-收益结构条件推理的结果，如被试在具有成本-收益结构内容的条件推理上普遍得好成绩。但不能解释标准社会契约规则的成绩好于转换社会契约规则、熟悉性对它的影响等问题。相反，记忆线索假设及“知识与试题双重结构模型”对此作出了一定的理论解释。
同时也表明，尽管基于进化心理学而提出的社会契约理论主张领域特定性推理过程,但并没有证据来支持领域普遍性思维是一种领域特定性适应（Girotto V.Tentori K,2008)。
本研究认为，综合现有的各种理论观点来看，像成本-收益结构条件推理这样的高级心理加工能力，既可以用领域特定的社会契约理论来加以解释，也可以用普遍的其它理论来加以解释，因此可以说是领域一般和领域特定的综合体。
Since “content effects” had been discovered of the Wason selection task (alsoknown as the four card task)，it aroused many researchers’ wide interest. But many ofthe results are not consistent, and sometimes conflicting. In order to explain thisphenomenon of “content effects", there has emerged many theoretical or model, butthese theories seems have some deficiencies always.
Cosmides&Tooby analysis the "Content effects" of the four cards task from anevolutionary point of view, then put forward a new perspective and believe that thereason of many theories can not explain the “content effects” is the basis of thesetheoretical assumptions-the same cognitive process controlled different areas ofreasoning, is wrong.
The social contract theory which based on the perspective of evolutionarypsychology believe that the human mind is the most complex natural phenomenonhumans have yet encountered, that the human mind is the product of the evolutionaryprocess, and that the human mind contains algorithms (specialized mechanisms)designed for reasoning about social exchange, and social exchange is anevolutionarily crucial domain.
Our social contract algorithms operate on cost-benefit representations becausethis is the highest level of abstraction at which social exchange can be understood.
In order to make people easier to participate in social exchange reasoning，Procedures that make us very good at detecting cheating were directly programmedinto our Darwinian algorithms for reasoning about social exchange.
Social contract theory not only provides the most parsimonious explanation ofthe data, but the assumption that some innate algorithms are special-purpose andcontent-dependent is also more parsimonious from the standpoint of evolutionarytheory. The social contract theory is considered to be far more one of the effectiveexplain theory of “content effects".On an empirical level, social contract theory is theonly candidate theory to attempt to stalk the “elusive content effect” on the selectiontask. Although this theory has been supported by a series of experiments evidence, itsuffered a lot of criticism also, and there are still many problems to be solved: Such aswhether there are differences between the standard social contract rules and the switchsocial contract rules, Why do people choose altruism cards on the cost-benefit structure of social exchange reasoning, more importantly, The cost-benefit structuralconditions reasoning can only explain by the social contract theory, or it isdomain-specific evolution results and so on, There are little research on these issuesdomestic and abroad. So it is important to strengthen the research in this field forrevealing the cognitive rule of people's reasoning and decision-making.
This research mainly conducted five research seven experiments, wereinvestigated respectively:1) The influence of instructions on conditional reasoning ofthe cost-benefit structure;2)The differences between experts and novices onconditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure;3)The difference and it’s reasonbetween the standard social contract and switched social contract rule;4) The selectionof altruistic cards on the conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure;5)Thestudy on development of conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure.
The main findings of this study are as follows:
1) The falsifiable instruction is helpful in improving the subjects’ performanceon conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure.
2) There was no significant difference of the social contract scores between theexperts and novices on the conditional reasoning of cost-benefit structure.
3) Compared with unfamiliar social contract，Participants word better on thefamiliar social contract.
4) The subjects' performance on the standard social contract rules is better thanthat of the switched social contract rule.
5) Participants were more likely to choose the altruism card on the switchedsocial contract rules than that of the standard social contract rule.
6) Chinese subjects chose altruistic card more than the American subjects, Thismay be the results of Chinese and foreign cultural differences, But there have nosignificant differences between the Han Nationality and Uigur nationality
7) People's reasoning ability on social contract has been on the upswing fromchildhood until late adulthood, and the adulthood is the period of the rapiddevelopment of reasoning ability throughout the life.
8) As for the Standards social contract issues, Early adulthood is the highest peakof the development of people's reasoning ability; But in terms of switched socialcontract issues, the highest peak is happened in the middle-adulthood; The bestreasoning scores of the social rules of contract problems occur in early adulthood; andit occurs in middle-adulthood of the personal rules of contract reasoning.
The results of this series of experiments showed that social contract theory can partly explain the result of conditional reasoning on the cost-benefit structure. Such asthere have good results on conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure contentin generally. But it can not explain the performs of the standard social contract rulesare better than that of the switch social contract, it can not explain the influence offamiliarity on the conditional reasoning of cost-benefit and so on. On the contrary, thememory cue hypothesis and the dual structure model of item and knowledge canexplain it to some extent.
It also show that although the social contract theory,which based on evolutionarypsychology advocated domain-specific reasoning process, there is no evidence tosupport the field universality thinking is a domain-specific adaptation.Therefore, thisstudy suggests that integrated the existing theoretical point of view, the conditionalreasoning of costs-benefit structure of such higher mental processing capacity can beexplained both by the domain-specific social contract theory and the otherdomain-general theory. So you can say it is a complex of the domain-general anddomain-specific.
基于进化心理学角度提出的社会契约理论认为，人类心理是人类所遇到的最复杂的自然现象，是进化过程的产物，包含了专门针对社会交换的特定推理机制。社会交换在人类进化过程中是一个至关重要的领域，我们所拥有社会契约运算法则操纵着成本－收益表征，因为成本-收益表征在社会交换中是能够被理解的最高水平的抽象过程。为了便于对社会交换进行推理，人们非常擅于侦查欺骗的程序是直接编入到我们的达尔文主义的运算法则中去，社会契约理论不仅对数据提供了最节俭的解释，而且从进化理论来看，其假定某些天生的运算法则是目的特定性和内容依赖性也是极其节俭的，社会契约理论被认为是至今对“内容效应”更为有效的解释之一，是在实验水平上能解释内容效应的唯一候选理论。尽管该理论得到了一系列实验证据的支持，但也遭受了不少批评，并且还存在许多有待解决的问题：如标准社会契约规则与转换社会契约规则是否存在差异、人们为什么会在成本-收益结构社会交换条件推理上选择利他主义卡片，更为重要的是，人们对成本-收益结构条件推理是否仅仅能用社会契约理论加以解释，或者说仅仅是领域特定进化的结果等。国内外对此研究相对较少，因此加强对该领域的研究对于揭示人们的推理、乃至决策的认知规律具有重要的理论和实践意义。
本研究主要进行了五个研究七个实验，分别考察了：1）指导语对成本-收益结构条件推理的影响；2）专家与新手在成本-收益结构条件推理上的差异；3）标准与转换社会契约规则的差异及其原因；4）在成本-收益结构条件推理上的利他主义选择；5）成本-收益结构条件推理的发展趋势。
本研究主要获得了以下结论：
1）证伪指导语更有助于改善被试在成本-收益结构内容条件推理上的作业成绩；
2）专家与新手在成本-收益结构条件推理上的社会契约作答差异不显著；
3）与不熟悉性的社会契约问题相比，熟悉的社会契约问题作业成绩更好；
4）标准社会契约规则的作业成绩好于转换社会契约规则的作业成绩；
5）被试在转换社会契约规则问题比在标准社会契约规则问题上更倾向于选择利他主义卡片组合；
6）与美国被试相比，中国被试更多选择利他主义卡片组合，这可能是中外文化差异造成的结果，但同为中国被试的汉维族间差异不显著；
7）从儿童期开始直到成年晚期人们的社会契约推理能力一直处于上升阶段，成年期是人生推理能力发展突飞猛进的时期；
8）对标准社会契约问题而言，成年早期是人们推理能力发展的最高峰；但对转换社会契约问题来说，成年中期是人们推理能力发展的最高峰；社会规则契约问题的最佳推理成绩发生在成年早期；个人规则契约问题的最佳推理成绩出现在成年中期。
这一系列实验结果表明，社会契约理论可以部分地解释成本-收益结构条件推理的结果，如被试在具有成本-收益结构内容的条件推理上普遍得好成绩。但不能解释标准社会契约规则的成绩好于转换社会契约规则、熟悉性对它的影响等问题。相反，记忆线索假设及“知识与试题双重结构模型”对此作出了一定的理论解释。
同时也表明，尽管基于进化心理学而提出的社会契约理论主张领域特定性推理过程,但并没有证据来支持领域普遍性思维是一种领域特定性适应（Girotto V.Tentori K,2008)。
本研究认为，综合现有的各种理论观点来看，像成本-收益结构条件推理这样的高级心理加工能力，既可以用领域特定的社会契约理论来加以解释，也可以用普遍的其它理论来加以解释，因此可以说是领域一般和领域特定的综合体。
Since “content effects” had been discovered of the Wason selection task (alsoknown as the four card task)，it aroused many researchers’ wide interest. But many ofthe results are not consistent, and sometimes conflicting. In order to explain thisphenomenon of “content effects", there has emerged many theoretical or model, butthese theories seems have some deficiencies always.
Cosmides&Tooby analysis the "Content effects" of the four cards task from anevolutionary point of view, then put forward a new perspective and believe that thereason of many theories can not explain the “content effects” is the basis of thesetheoretical assumptions-the same cognitive process controlled different areas ofreasoning, is wrong.
The social contract theory which based on the perspective of evolutionarypsychology believe that the human mind is the most complex natural phenomenonhumans have yet encountered, that the human mind is the product of the evolutionaryprocess, and that the human mind contains algorithms (specialized mechanisms)designed for reasoning about social exchange, and social exchange is anevolutionarily crucial domain.
Our social contract algorithms operate on cost-benefit representations becausethis is the highest level of abstraction at which social exchange can be understood.
In order to make people easier to participate in social exchange reasoning，Procedures that make us very good at detecting cheating were directly programmedinto our Darwinian algorithms for reasoning about social exchange.
Social contract theory not only provides the most parsimonious explanation ofthe data, but the assumption that some innate algorithms are special-purpose andcontent-dependent is also more parsimonious from the standpoint of evolutionarytheory. The social contract theory is considered to be far more one of the effectiveexplain theory of “content effects".On an empirical level, social contract theory is theonly candidate theory to attempt to stalk the “elusive content effect” on the selectiontask. Although this theory has been supported by a series of experiments evidence, itsuffered a lot of criticism also, and there are still many problems to be solved: Such aswhether there are differences between the standard social contract rules and the switchsocial contract rules, Why do people choose altruism cards on the cost-benefit structure of social exchange reasoning, more importantly, The cost-benefit structuralconditions reasoning can only explain by the social contract theory, or it isdomain-specific evolution results and so on, There are little research on these issuesdomestic and abroad. So it is important to strengthen the research in this field forrevealing the cognitive rule of people's reasoning and decision-making.
This research mainly conducted five research seven experiments, wereinvestigated respectively:1) The influence of instructions on conditional reasoning ofthe cost-benefit structure;2)The differences between experts and novices onconditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure;3)The difference and it’s reasonbetween the standard social contract and switched social contract rule;4) The selectionof altruistic cards on the conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure;5)Thestudy on development of conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure.
The main findings of this study are as follows:
1) The falsifiable instruction is helpful in improving the subjects’ performanceon conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure.
2) There was no significant difference of the social contract scores between theexperts and novices on the conditional reasoning of cost-benefit structure.
3) Compared with unfamiliar social contract，Participants word better on thefamiliar social contract.
4) The subjects' performance on the standard social contract rules is better thanthat of the switched social contract rule.
5) Participants were more likely to choose the altruism card on the switchedsocial contract rules than that of the standard social contract rule.
6) Chinese subjects chose altruistic card more than the American subjects, Thismay be the results of Chinese and foreign cultural differences, But there have nosignificant differences between the Han Nationality and Uigur nationality
7) People's reasoning ability on social contract has been on the upswing fromchildhood until late adulthood, and the adulthood is the period of the rapiddevelopment of reasoning ability throughout the life.
8) As for the Standards social contract issues, Early adulthood is the highest peakof the development of people's reasoning ability; But in terms of switched socialcontract issues, the highest peak is happened in the middle-adulthood; The bestreasoning scores of the social rules of contract problems occur in early adulthood; andit occurs in middle-adulthood of the personal rules of contract reasoning.
The results of this series of experiments showed that social contract theory can partly explain the result of conditional reasoning on the cost-benefit structure. Such asthere have good results on conditional reasoning of the cost-benefit structure contentin generally. But it can not explain the performs of the standard social contract rulesare better than that of the switch social contract, it can not explain the influence offamiliarity on the conditional reasoning of cost-benefit and so on. On the contrary, thememory cue hypothesis and the dual structure model of item and knowledge canexplain it to some extent.
It also show that although the social contract theory,which based on evolutionarypsychology advocated domain-specific reasoning process, there is no evidence tosupport the field universality thinking is a domain-specific adaptation.Therefore, thisstudy suggests that integrated the existing theoretical point of view, the conditionalreasoning of costs-benefit structure of such higher mental processing capacity can beexplained both by the domain-specific social contract theory and the otherdomain-general theory. So you can say it is a complex of the domain-general anddomain-specific.
引文
白学军等译，Newman and Newman（2005），发展心理学（第八版），西安：陕西师范大学出版社
陈波著(2006).逻辑学导论（第2版）.北京：中国人民大学出版社.pp.7
陈波著(2011).逻辑学概论.北京：北京师范大学出版社.
陈水平(2005).复合命题推理的发展性实验研究.南昌:江西师范大学硕士学位论文.
陈晓惠(2007).不同认知方式大学生解决四卡问题的逻辑训练效应.安庆：安徽师范大学硕士学位论文.
陈晓惠,葛明贵.(2009).不同认知方式大学生解决四卡问题的逻辑训练效应.内蒙古师范大学学报（教育科学版）.22(5):74-76.
陈天勇,韩布新,罗跃嘉,李德明(2004).认知年老化与执行衰退假说.心理科学进展,12(5),729–736.
丁月华,李红(2003).三种处理条件下三段论推理加工过程的发展研究.心理科学.26(5):947-950.
杜振吉，郭鲁兵(2009).儒家公私观述论.道德与文明.6:37‐43.
胡竹菁(2002).推理心理学研究中的逻辑加工与非逻辑加工评析.心理科学.25:318‐321.
胡竹菁,朱丽萍(2003).推理结论正确性判定标准再探.心理与行为研究.1(4):248‐251
胡竹菁,朱丽萍.(2007).人类推理的心理学研究.北京：高等教育出版社.33‐35;55‐76.
胡竹菁(2008).条件推理的条件概率模型述评.心理学探新.28(2):25-32.
胡竹菁(2009). Johnson-Laird的“心理模型”理论述评.心理学探新.29（4）：23‐28.
丁锦红，张钦，郭春彦编著(2010).认知心理学.北京：中国人民大学出版社.pp.234-239
葛明贵.(2001).指导语对解决四卡问题影响的实验研究.安徽师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）,29（2）：267－269
贾海燕，刘茨.(2012).执行四卡任务的一般认知过程探析.考试周刊.16：161‐163
贾蕊(2007).选言推理能力的发展性研究.曲阜：曲阜师范大学硕士学位论文.
李丹,张福娟,金瑜(1985).儿童演绎推理特点再探——假言推理.心理科学通讯.1：4－10
李德明,陈天勇(2006).认知年老和老年心理健康.心理科学进展.14(4):560-564.
李德明,陈天勇,李贵芸,刘昌(2004).认知能力的毕生发展及其分离性和个体差异性研究.心理科学.27(6):1288-1290
李华.(2011).指导语形式、材料性质对解决四卡问题的影响.社会心理科
学,26(1):21‐25
李晶(2003).范畴三段论推理中信念偏差效应的发展性研究.兰州：西北师范大学硕士学位.
李小平,张庆林(2006).四卡问题的执行功能新解释.宁波大学学报(教育科学版).28(2)：34‐38
梁宁建(1997).专家和新手问题解决认知活动特征的研究.心理科学.20(5):406‐409
廖菲(2011).双系统理论新进展.牡丹江教育学院学报.3:111‐112
林崇德(2009)，发展心理学，北京：人民教育出版社.
林崇德,张春兴(2005)，发展心理学，杭州：浙江教育出版社.
刘茨(2000).充分条件假言推理的发展性研究.重庆：西南师范大学硕士学位论文.
刘志雅(2011).演绎推理认知神经研究.华南师范大学学报（社会科学版）.4:120-125.
罗俊龙,张庆林(2009).逻辑训练后条件推理中的内容效应:来自ERP的证据.济南：第十二届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集.2009.11.
年鑫(2007).大中学生复合命题推理能力的发展研究.昆明：云南师范大学硕士学位论文.
彭聃龄，张必隐(2004).认知心理学.杭州：浙江教育出版社.
彭茹静（2003）.利他主义行为的理论发展研究.江西社会科学.7:221-223.
邱江，吴玉亭，张庆林(2005).命题内容对青少年条件推理的影响.心理发展与教育.21(3):17‐2
邵志芳著(2006).认知心理学——理论、实验和应用.上海:上海教育出版社.pp.310
滕洪昌(2005).假言推理中判定标准及其特点的实验研究.南昌:江西师范大学硕士学位论文.
王桂琴,孙昌识(1998).命题检验中的推理过程及困难原因的实验研究.心理学动态.6(2):56‐62.
王丽梅(2010).条件推理内容效应的眼动研究.福州：福建师范大学硕士学位论文.
王甦，汪安圣(2008).认知心理学（重排本），北京：北京大学出版社.pp.200.
徐宝朋(2008).社会交换情景和概率因素对条件推理的影响.郑州：河南大学硕士学位论文.
袁雯雯(2011).范畴三段论推理格效应与信念偏差效应的眼动研究.福州:福建师范大学硕士学位论文.
杨莉(2007).两种概率表征的贝叶斯推理的加工过程——对认知双重加工模型的深入分析.南昌：江西师范大学博士学位论文.
杨义芹(2010).中国传统公私观及其缺陷.上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版).39(2):39‐45.
杨文兵(2005).道德制度的成本收益分析.社会科学.5:74‐78
余达祥(2008).条件推理机制的心理学研究.南昌：江西师范大学博士学位论文.
余达祥(2009).条件推理概率解释模型中的隐性预设及其实证检验.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版).27(3)，46‐54.
余达祥,胡竹菁,邱琴(2005).经验知识在条件推理过程中的二种效应.上海：第十届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集.2005.10. P655.
曾晓青,张凤华,胡竹菁(2012).不同指导语对成本—收益结构条件推理的影响.心理学探新.32(4),317－322
曾维希(2005).四卡问题的匹配表征与激活效应的分离实验.上海：第十届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集.2005.10. P655.
张庆林，杨雄(1997).四卡问题的内容促进效应的实验研究.心理科学.20(4):311‐314
张庆林，杨雄(1998).大学生解决四卡问题的叙述理由效应.心理学报.30(3):348‐352
张婷婷(2008).范畴三段论推理中信念偏差效应的眼动研究.南京：南京师范大学硕士学位.
张清芳，朱滢(2000).工作记忆和推理.心理学动态.8(1)：12-17
张霞.(2005).大中学生四卡问题推理能力发展的实验研究.心理学探新,25(2):54‐69.
张勇(2007).“觉察欺骗者”模块：条件推理的进化心理学研究.上海：华东师范大学硕士学位论文.
张勇，熊哲宏.(2009).语用图式和欺骗情境对四卡片任务的促进作用.心理科学,32(5):1113‐1115
张庆林,邱江(2005).四卡问题解决中的逻辑分析效应.第十届全国心理学学术大会论文集，PP.234.
张凤华,邱江,张庆林(2006).反事实条件推理的认知加工机制初探.西南师范大学学报(自然科学版).31(5),172‐176
赵鼎新(2006).集体行动、搭便车理论与形式社会学方法.社会学研究.21(1):1‐21.
诸葛殷同等著(2007)，形式逻辑原理.社会科学文献出版社.pp.60
John B Best著，黄希庭译(2000).认知心理学.北京:中国轻工业出版社.pp.304
M.W.艾森克，M.T.基恩撰著，荆其诚，高定国译(2009).认知心理学（第五版）.上海：华东师范大学出版社.pp.604.
Robert J.Sternberg著，杨炳钧等译(2006).认知心理学（第三版）.北京:中国轻工业出版社.pp.220，335‐337
Adolphs, R.(1999). Social cognition and the human brain.Trends in CognitiveSciences,3,469-479.
Armin W. Schulz(2012).Philosophy of Behavioral Biology Boston Studies in thePhilosophy of Science. Heuristic Evolutionary Psychology.282, pp217-234
Axelrod, Robert M.(1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Axelrod, R.,&Hamilton, W.D.(1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science,221,11390-1396.
Barclay, P.(2004). Trustworthiness and Competitive Altruism Can Also Solve the“Tragedy of the Commons.”Evolution and Human Behavior25:209–220
Barclay.P,Martin L. Lalumière(2006). Do People Differentially Remember Cheaters?Human Nature, Spring.17(1):pp.98–113.
Barkow.J, L.Cosmides&J.Tooby(1992).The Adapted Mind: Evolutionarypsychology and the generation culture editors. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.P179
Bruno G. Bara, Monica Bucciarelli and Philip N. Johnson-Laird(1995). Developmentof Syllogistic Reasoning. The American Journal of Psychology.Vol.108, No.2, P157-193
Charles Kornreich,Dyna Delle-Vigne,Julian Knittel,Aurore Nerincx, SalvatoreCampanella, Xavier Noel,Catherine Hanak, Paul Verbanck,ElsaErmer(2011).Impaired conditional reasoning in alcoholics: a negative impact onsocial interactions and risky behaviors?Additcion.106(5):951-959.
Cosmides, L.(1985). Deduction or Darwinian algorithms?: An explanation of the“elusive” content effect on the Wason selection task. Doctoral dissertation,Harvard University. University Microfilms86-02206.
Cosmides, L.(1985) Ph.D. dissertation (Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA).
Cosmides,L.(1989).The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped howhumans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition,31:187-276.
Cosmides, L.,&Tooby, J.(1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation ofculture, Part II. Case study:A computational theory of social exchange. Ethologyand Sociobiology,10,51-97.
Cosmides, L.(1989) Cognition31,187–276.
Cosmides, L.&Tooby, J.(1992) in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology andthe Generation of Culture, eds. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L.&Tooby, J.(Oxford Univ.Press, New York), pp.163–228.
Cosmides.L,&Tooby,J.（2005）.Proofs of chapter that appeared in:EvolutionaryPsychology Handbook.David M.Buss, Editor.NY:Wiley.NeurocognitiveAdaptations Designed for Social Exchange.pp613-614.
Cosmides and Tooby(2008). Can a General Deontic Logic Capture the Facts ofHuman Moral Reasoning? How the Mind Interprets Social Exchange Rules andDetects Cheaters.Moral Psychology, Volume1: The evolution of morality.WalterSinnott-Armstrong, Editor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deltona.Andrew W, Krasnowa.Max M, Cosmidesa Leda,&Tooby John(2011).Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty canexplain human generosity inone-shot encounters.PNAS.108(32):13335-133340
Evans,J.St.B.T.(2002).Logic and human reasoning:An assessment of the deductionparadigm. Psychological Bulletin,128,978-996
Eysenck M,Keane M(2005).Cognitive Psychology.Psychology Press.
Elsa Ermer, Scott A. Guerin, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, and Michael B.Miller(2006). Theory of mind broad and narrow: Reasoning about socialexchange engages ToM areas, precautionary reasoning does not. SocialNeuroscience,1(3-4),196-219
Fiddick.L(2003). Is there a facu Ity of deontic reason ing? A critical re-evaluation ofabstract deontic versions of the Wason selection task.33-60
Fiddick.L., Erlich.N.(2010).Giving it all away: altruism and answers to the Wasonselection task. Evolution&Human Behavior.31(2):131-140.
Goel,V．，Makale，M．，et al(2004)．The Hippocampal System Mediates LogicalReasoning about Familiar Spatial Environments． Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience，16(4):654-664．
Gigerenzer,G.&Hug,K.(1992).Domain-specific Reasoning: Social Contracts,Cheating,and Perspective Change. Cognition,43:127-71.
Girotto,V., Kemmelmeier,M., Sperber,D.,&Jean-Baptiste,van der Henst(2001). Ineptreasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task.Cognition,81,69-76.
Girotto V. Tentori K.(2008).Is domain-general thinking a domain-specific adaptation?Mind Soc.7(2):167-175.
Harris, P.,&Nú ez, M.(1996). Understanding of permission rules by preschoolchildren. Child Development,67,1572–1591.
Harris, P., Nú ez, M.,&Brett, C.(2001). Let’s swap: Early understanding of socialexchange by British and Nepali children. Memory and Cognition,29,757–764.
Hawkins, J., Pea, R. D., Glick, J.,&Scribner, S(1984).Merds that laugh don’t likemushrooms”: Evidence for deductive reasoning by preschoolers. DevelopmentalPsychology,(20)4：584-594.
Hiraishi.K., Ando.J., Ono.Y., Hasegawa.T.(2004). General trust and individualdifferences on the Wason selection task with sharing-rule. Psychology.47(4),226-237.
Holyoak,Keith.L., Morrison,Robert G.(2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinkingand Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hugo Mercier&Dan Sperber(2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for anargumentative theory. BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES.34,57–111
Inhelder,B., piage.J. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence.Ny:Basic Books,1958
Janveau-Brennan, Geneviève; Markovits, Henry(1999).The development of reasoningwith causal conditionals. Developmental Psychology, Vol35(4), Jul1999,904-911.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.(2000).Thinking: Reasoning.In A.Kazdin(Ed.),Encyclopedia ofpsychology.Washington,DC:American Psychology Association.Vol.8,pp.75-79.
Johnson-Laird P N.(2005).Mental Models and Thought.In:K J.Holyoak, R G.Morrison.Eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. CambridgeUniversity Press,187.
Johnson-Laird P N.(2006).Howwe reason.Oxford University Press.428.
Keith J. Holyoak and Robert G. Morrison(2005).The Cambridge Handbook ofThinking and Reasoning. Cambridge university press.New York：P171
Katharine Browne(2012). Reason, Evolution, and the Possibility of Cooperation. thedegree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy University of Toronto.
Lawrence S. Sugiyama, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides(2002). Cross-culturalevidence of cognitive adaptations for social exchange among the Shiwiar ofEcuadorian Amazonia.PNAS,99(17):11537-11542
Manktelow, K.I. and Over, D.E.1991: Social Roles and Utilities in Reasoning WithDeontic Conditionals. Cognition,39:85-105.
Markovits,H.,Vachon,R(1990).Conditional Reasoning,Representation,and Level ofAbstraction.Developmental Psychology,26(6):942-951.
Marr, D.(1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representationand processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
Mathew Sarah&Boyd Robert(2011).Punishment sustains large-scale cooperation inprestate warfare.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the UnitedStates of America.108(28):11375-11380.
Michael W. Eysenck and Mark T. Keane(2005). Cognitive Psychology: A StudentHandbook. Psychology Press, a member of the Taylor&Francis Group,pp514
Klaczynski, Paul A, Schuneman, Mary J, Daniel, David B.(2004).Theories ofConditional Reasoning: A Developmental Examination of Competing Hypotheses.Developmental Psychology, Vol40(4):559-571.
Moshman,D(1990).The Development of Metalogical Understanding.In W.F.Overton(Ed.), Reasoning, Necessity and Logic:Developmental Perspectives(PP.205-225). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Nicola Canessa, Alessandra Gorini, Stefano F. Cappa,Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,Massimo Danna, Ferruccio Fazio, and Daniela Perani(2005).The Effect of SocialContent on Deductive Reasoning:an fMRI Study. Human Brain Mapping.26:30–43
Niki Verschueren, Walter Schaeken, and Ge′ry d’Ydewalle(2005). A dual-processspecification of causal conditional reasoning. Thinking&Rrasoning.
Oda.R., Hiraishi.K., Matsumoto-Oda.(2006).Does an altruist-detection cognitivemechanism function independently of a cheater-detection cognitive mechanism?Studies using Wason selection tasks. Evolution and Human Behavior.27(5),366–380.
Overton,W.F.,Newman,J.L(1982).Cognitive Development:ACompetence-activation/utilization Approach. In T.M.Field, A. Huston,H.C.Quay,L.Troll&G.E.Finley(Eds.), Review of Human Development. NewYork: Wiley.
Overton,W.F,Newman,J.L.(1985),Scientific Methodologies and theCompetence-moderator-performance Issue. In E. Nei-mark, R.D. Lisi,&J.Newman(Eds.), Moderators of Competence.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Overton,W.F.,Newman,J.L.(1990),Competence and Procedures:Constraints on theDevelopment of Logical Reasoning.In W.F.Overton(Ed.),Reasoning,Necessityand Logic:Developmental Perspectives(PP.1-34),Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Platt, R.&Griggs, R.(1993) Cognition48,163–192.
Politzer, G. and Nguyen-Xuan, A.1992: Reasoning About Conditional Promises andWarnings: Darwinian Algorithms, Mental Models, Relevance Judgments, orpragmatic schemas? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A,401-21
Raz, N.(2000). Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance:Integration of structural and functional findings. The handbook of aging andcognition,2,1–90.
Raz, N.(2004). The aging brain: Structural changes and their implications forcognitive aging. New frontiers in cognitive aging,115–133.
Rellihan M（2012）Adaptationism and adaptive thinking in evolutionary psychology.Philosophical Psychology.25(2):245-277.
Rips,L.J.(1999).Deductive reasoning.In R.A.Wilson&F.C.Keil(Eds.),The MITEncyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.pp.225-226.
Schulz,Armin.W(2012). Philosophy of Behavioral Biology Boston Studies in thePhilosophy of Science. Heuristic Evolutionary Psychology.282, pp217-234
Smith,E.A.,S. Bowles,&H. Gintis(2000). Cooperation and Costly Signaling. Journalof Theoretical Biology213:103–119.
Sober E(1988).What is evolutionary altruism? Canada Journal ofPhiligophy,14:75-99.
Sperber.D,Francesco Cara,Vittorio Girotto(1995). Relevance theory explains theselection task.Cognition.57(1):31–95
Sperber, D.,&Girotto, V.(2002). Use or misuse of the selection task?Rejoinder toFiddick, Cosmides and Tooby.Cognition:International journal of cognitivescience,85(3),277-290
Stone, V. E., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Kroll, N.&Knight, R. T.(2002) Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA99,11531–11536.
Trivers, R.L.(1971).The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review ofBiology,46,35-57.
Ulrich Müller, Willis F. Overton, and Kelly Reene(2001).Development of ConditionalReasoning: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of cognition and development.2(1):27–49.
Varvatsoulias. G.,(2010). Massive modularity? The relationship betweencontext-relevance, information encapsulation and functional specialization.Europe’s Journal of Psychology,6(4),209-226.
Venet,M.,Markovits,H(2001).Understanding Uncertainty with Abstract ConditionalPremises. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,47:74-99
Vittorio Girotto Katya Tentori(2008). Is domain-general thinking a domain-specificadaptation? Mind Soc.7:167–175
Wason, P.(1966) in New Horizons in Psychology, ed. Foss, B.(Penguin,Harmondsworth, U.K.), pp.135–151.
Wason,P.C.,&Johson-Laird,P.N.(1972).Psychology of reasoning: Structure andcontent.London:B.T.Batsford.
Wason, P.&Johnson-Laird, P.(1972) Psychology of Reasoning: Structure andContent Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wason, P.(1983) in Thinking and Reasoning: Psychological Approaches, ed. Evans, J.S. B. T.(Routledge&Kegan Paul, London), pp.44–75.
West, R. L.(1996). An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitiveaging. Psychological Bulletin,120(2),272–292.
Wildman.T.M.,Fletcher,H.J.Developmental Increases and Decreases in Solutions ofConditional Syllogism Problems. Developmental Psychology,1977,13.P630-636.
Williams,R.N.(2000).Epistemology.In A.E.Kazdin(Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Vol.3:.225-232.
Wilson EO(1976). Sociology: The New Syuthesis. Cambridge, mass: HarvardUniversity Press.
Zahavi, A., and A. Zahavi(1997).The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece ofDarwin’s Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.
陈波著(2006).逻辑学导论（第2版）.北京：中国人民大学出版社.pp.7
陈波著(2011).逻辑学概论.北京：北京师范大学出版社.
陈水平(2005).复合命题推理的发展性实验研究.南昌:江西师范大学硕士学位论文.
陈晓惠(2007).不同认知方式大学生解决四卡问题的逻辑训练效应.安庆：安徽师范大学硕士学位论文.
陈晓惠,葛明贵.(2009).不同认知方式大学生解决四卡问题的逻辑训练效应.内蒙古师范大学学报（教育科学版）.22(5):74-76.
陈天勇,韩布新,罗跃嘉,李德明(2004).认知年老化与执行衰退假说.心理科学进展,12(5),729–736.
丁月华,李红(2003).三种处理条件下三段论推理加工过程的发展研究.心理科学.26(5):947-950.
杜振吉，郭鲁兵(2009).儒家公私观述论.道德与文明.6:37‐43.
胡竹菁(2002).推理心理学研究中的逻辑加工与非逻辑加工评析.心理科学.25:318‐321.
胡竹菁,朱丽萍(2003).推理结论正确性判定标准再探.心理与行为研究.1(4):248‐251
胡竹菁,朱丽萍.(2007).人类推理的心理学研究.北京：高等教育出版社.33‐35;55‐76.
胡竹菁(2008).条件推理的条件概率模型述评.心理学探新.28(2):25-32.
胡竹菁(2009). Johnson-Laird的“心理模型”理论述评.心理学探新.29（4）：23‐28.
丁锦红，张钦，郭春彦编著(2010).认知心理学.北京：中国人民大学出版社.pp.234-239
葛明贵.(2001).指导语对解决四卡问题影响的实验研究.安徽师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）,29（2）：267－269
贾海燕，刘茨.(2012).执行四卡任务的一般认知过程探析.考试周刊.16：161‐163
贾蕊(2007).选言推理能力的发展性研究.曲阜：曲阜师范大学硕士学位论文.
李丹,张福娟,金瑜(1985).儿童演绎推理特点再探——假言推理.心理科学通讯.1：4－10
李德明,陈天勇(2006).认知年老和老年心理健康.心理科学进展.14(4):560-564.
李德明,陈天勇,李贵芸,刘昌(2004).认知能力的毕生发展及其分离性和个体差异性研究.心理科学.27(6):1288-1290
李华.(2011).指导语形式、材料性质对解决四卡问题的影响.社会心理科
学,26(1):21‐25
李晶(2003).范畴三段论推理中信念偏差效应的发展性研究.兰州：西北师范大学硕士学位.
李小平,张庆林(2006).四卡问题的执行功能新解释.宁波大学学报(教育科学版).28(2)：34‐38
梁宁建(1997).专家和新手问题解决认知活动特征的研究.心理科学.20(5):406‐409
廖菲(2011).双系统理论新进展.牡丹江教育学院学报.3:111‐112
林崇德(2009)，发展心理学，北京：人民教育出版社.
林崇德,张春兴(2005)，发展心理学，杭州：浙江教育出版社.
刘茨(2000).充分条件假言推理的发展性研究.重庆：西南师范大学硕士学位论文.
刘志雅(2011).演绎推理认知神经研究.华南师范大学学报（社会科学版）.4:120-125.
罗俊龙,张庆林(2009).逻辑训练后条件推理中的内容效应:来自ERP的证据.济南：第十二届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集.2009.11.
年鑫(2007).大中学生复合命题推理能力的发展研究.昆明：云南师范大学硕士学位论文.
彭聃龄，张必隐(2004).认知心理学.杭州：浙江教育出版社.
彭茹静（2003）.利他主义行为的理论发展研究.江西社会科学.7:221-223.
邱江，吴玉亭，张庆林(2005).命题内容对青少年条件推理的影响.心理发展与教育.21(3):17‐2
邵志芳著(2006).认知心理学——理论、实验和应用.上海:上海教育出版社.pp.310
滕洪昌(2005).假言推理中判定标准及其特点的实验研究.南昌:江西师范大学硕士学位论文.
王桂琴,孙昌识(1998).命题检验中的推理过程及困难原因的实验研究.心理学动态.6(2):56‐62.
王丽梅(2010).条件推理内容效应的眼动研究.福州：福建师范大学硕士学位论文.
王甦，汪安圣(2008).认知心理学（重排本），北京：北京大学出版社.pp.200.
徐宝朋(2008).社会交换情景和概率因素对条件推理的影响.郑州：河南大学硕士学位论文.
袁雯雯(2011).范畴三段论推理格效应与信念偏差效应的眼动研究.福州:福建师范大学硕士学位论文.
杨莉(2007).两种概率表征的贝叶斯推理的加工过程——对认知双重加工模型的深入分析.南昌：江西师范大学博士学位论文.
杨义芹(2010).中国传统公私观及其缺陷.上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版).39(2):39‐45.
杨文兵(2005).道德制度的成本收益分析.社会科学.5:74‐78
余达祥(2008).条件推理机制的心理学研究.南昌：江西师范大学博士学位论文.
余达祥(2009).条件推理概率解释模型中的隐性预设及其实证检验.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版).27(3)，46‐54.
余达祥,胡竹菁,邱琴(2005).经验知识在条件推理过程中的二种效应.上海：第十届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集.2005.10. P655.
曾晓青,张凤华,胡竹菁(2012).不同指导语对成本—收益结构条件推理的影响.心理学探新.32(4),317－322
曾维希(2005).四卡问题的匹配表征与激活效应的分离实验.上海：第十届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集.2005.10. P655.
张庆林，杨雄(1997).四卡问题的内容促进效应的实验研究.心理科学.20(4):311‐314
张庆林，杨雄(1998).大学生解决四卡问题的叙述理由效应.心理学报.30(3):348‐352
张婷婷(2008).范畴三段论推理中信念偏差效应的眼动研究.南京：南京师范大学硕士学位.
张清芳，朱滢(2000).工作记忆和推理.心理学动态.8(1)：12-17
张霞.(2005).大中学生四卡问题推理能力发展的实验研究.心理学探新,25(2):54‐69.
张勇(2007).“觉察欺骗者”模块：条件推理的进化心理学研究.上海：华东师范大学硕士学位论文.
张勇，熊哲宏.(2009).语用图式和欺骗情境对四卡片任务的促进作用.心理科学,32(5):1113‐1115
张庆林,邱江(2005).四卡问题解决中的逻辑分析效应.第十届全国心理学学术大会论文集，PP.234.
张凤华,邱江,张庆林(2006).反事实条件推理的认知加工机制初探.西南师范大学学报(自然科学版).31(5),172‐176
赵鼎新(2006).集体行动、搭便车理论与形式社会学方法.社会学研究.21(1):1‐21.
诸葛殷同等著(2007)，形式逻辑原理.社会科学文献出版社.pp.60
John B Best著，黄希庭译(2000).认知心理学.北京:中国轻工业出版社.pp.304
M.W.艾森克，M.T.基恩撰著，荆其诚，高定国译(2009).认知心理学（第五版）.上海：华东师范大学出版社.pp.604.
Robert J.Sternberg著，杨炳钧等译(2006).认知心理学（第三版）.北京:中国轻工业出版社.pp.220，335‐337
Adolphs, R.(1999). Social cognition and the human brain.Trends in CognitiveSciences,3,469-479.
Armin W. Schulz(2012).Philosophy of Behavioral Biology Boston Studies in thePhilosophy of Science. Heuristic Evolutionary Psychology.282, pp217-234
Axelrod, Robert M.(1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Axelrod, R.,&Hamilton, W.D.(1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science,221,11390-1396.
Barclay, P.(2004). Trustworthiness and Competitive Altruism Can Also Solve the“Tragedy of the Commons.”Evolution and Human Behavior25:209–220
Barclay.P,Martin L. Lalumière(2006). Do People Differentially Remember Cheaters?Human Nature, Spring.17(1):pp.98–113.
Barkow.J, L.Cosmides&J.Tooby(1992).The Adapted Mind: Evolutionarypsychology and the generation culture editors. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.P179
Bruno G. Bara, Monica Bucciarelli and Philip N. Johnson-Laird(1995). Developmentof Syllogistic Reasoning. The American Journal of Psychology.Vol.108, No.2, P157-193
Charles Kornreich,Dyna Delle-Vigne,Julian Knittel,Aurore Nerincx, SalvatoreCampanella, Xavier Noel,Catherine Hanak, Paul Verbanck,ElsaErmer(2011).Impaired conditional reasoning in alcoholics: a negative impact onsocial interactions and risky behaviors?Additcion.106(5):951-959.
Cosmides, L.(1985). Deduction or Darwinian algorithms?: An explanation of the“elusive” content effect on the Wason selection task. Doctoral dissertation,Harvard University. University Microfilms86-02206.
Cosmides, L.(1985) Ph.D. dissertation (Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA).
Cosmides,L.(1989).The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped howhumans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition,31:187-276.
Cosmides, L.,&Tooby, J.(1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation ofculture, Part II. Case study:A computational theory of social exchange. Ethologyand Sociobiology,10,51-97.
Cosmides, L.(1989) Cognition31,187–276.
Cosmides, L.&Tooby, J.(1992) in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology andthe Generation of Culture, eds. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L.&Tooby, J.(Oxford Univ.Press, New York), pp.163–228.
Cosmides.L,&Tooby,J.（2005）.Proofs of chapter that appeared in:EvolutionaryPsychology Handbook.David M.Buss, Editor.NY:Wiley.NeurocognitiveAdaptations Designed for Social Exchange.pp613-614.
Cosmides and Tooby(2008). Can a General Deontic Logic Capture the Facts ofHuman Moral Reasoning? How the Mind Interprets Social Exchange Rules andDetects Cheaters.Moral Psychology, Volume1: The evolution of morality.WalterSinnott-Armstrong, Editor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deltona.Andrew W, Krasnowa.Max M, Cosmidesa Leda,&Tooby John(2011).Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty canexplain human generosity inone-shot encounters.PNAS.108(32):13335-133340
Evans,J.St.B.T.(2002).Logic and human reasoning:An assessment of the deductionparadigm. Psychological Bulletin,128,978-996
Eysenck M,Keane M(2005).Cognitive Psychology.Psychology Press.
Elsa Ermer, Scott A. Guerin, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, and Michael B.Miller(2006). Theory of mind broad and narrow: Reasoning about socialexchange engages ToM areas, precautionary reasoning does not. SocialNeuroscience,1(3-4),196-219
Fiddick.L(2003). Is there a facu Ity of deontic reason ing? A critical re-evaluation ofabstract deontic versions of the Wason selection task.33-60
Fiddick.L., Erlich.N.(2010).Giving it all away: altruism and answers to the Wasonselection task. Evolution&Human Behavior.31(2):131-140.
Goel,V．，Makale，M．，et al(2004)．The Hippocampal System Mediates LogicalReasoning about Familiar Spatial Environments． Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience，16(4):654-664．
Gigerenzer,G.&Hug,K.(1992).Domain-specific Reasoning: Social Contracts,Cheating,and Perspective Change. Cognition,43:127-71.
Girotto,V., Kemmelmeier,M., Sperber,D.,&Jean-Baptiste,van der Henst(2001). Ineptreasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task.Cognition,81,69-76.
Girotto V. Tentori K.(2008).Is domain-general thinking a domain-specific adaptation?Mind Soc.7(2):167-175.
Harris, P.,&Nú ez, M.(1996). Understanding of permission rules by preschoolchildren. Child Development,67,1572–1591.
Harris, P., Nú ez, M.,&Brett, C.(2001). Let’s swap: Early understanding of socialexchange by British and Nepali children. Memory and Cognition,29,757–764.
Hawkins, J., Pea, R. D., Glick, J.,&Scribner, S(1984).Merds that laugh don’t likemushrooms”: Evidence for deductive reasoning by preschoolers. DevelopmentalPsychology,(20)4：584-594.
Hiraishi.K., Ando.J., Ono.Y., Hasegawa.T.(2004). General trust and individualdifferences on the Wason selection task with sharing-rule. Psychology.47(4),226-237.
Holyoak,Keith.L., Morrison,Robert G.(2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinkingand Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hugo Mercier&Dan Sperber(2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for anargumentative theory. BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES.34,57–111
Inhelder,B., piage.J. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence.Ny:Basic Books,1958
Janveau-Brennan, Geneviève; Markovits, Henry(1999).The development of reasoningwith causal conditionals. Developmental Psychology, Vol35(4), Jul1999,904-911.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.(2000).Thinking: Reasoning.In A.Kazdin(Ed.),Encyclopedia ofpsychology.Washington,DC:American Psychology Association.Vol.8,pp.75-79.
Johnson-Laird P N.(2005).Mental Models and Thought.In:K J.Holyoak, R G.Morrison.Eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. CambridgeUniversity Press,187.
Johnson-Laird P N.(2006).Howwe reason.Oxford University Press.428.
Keith J. Holyoak and Robert G. Morrison(2005).The Cambridge Handbook ofThinking and Reasoning. Cambridge university press.New York：P171
Katharine Browne(2012). Reason, Evolution, and the Possibility of Cooperation. thedegree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy University of Toronto.
Lawrence S. Sugiyama, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides(2002). Cross-culturalevidence of cognitive adaptations for social exchange among the Shiwiar ofEcuadorian Amazonia.PNAS,99(17):11537-11542
Manktelow, K.I. and Over, D.E.1991: Social Roles and Utilities in Reasoning WithDeontic Conditionals. Cognition,39:85-105.
Markovits,H.,Vachon,R(1990).Conditional Reasoning,Representation,and Level ofAbstraction.Developmental Psychology,26(6):942-951.
Marr, D.(1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representationand processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
Mathew Sarah&Boyd Robert(2011).Punishment sustains large-scale cooperation inprestate warfare.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the UnitedStates of America.108(28):11375-11380.
Michael W. Eysenck and Mark T. Keane(2005). Cognitive Psychology: A StudentHandbook. Psychology Press, a member of the Taylor&Francis Group,pp514
Klaczynski, Paul A, Schuneman, Mary J, Daniel, David B.(2004).Theories ofConditional Reasoning: A Developmental Examination of Competing Hypotheses.Developmental Psychology, Vol40(4):559-571.
Moshman,D(1990).The Development of Metalogical Understanding.In W.F.Overton(Ed.), Reasoning, Necessity and Logic:Developmental Perspectives(PP.205-225). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Nicola Canessa, Alessandra Gorini, Stefano F. Cappa,Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,Massimo Danna, Ferruccio Fazio, and Daniela Perani(2005).The Effect of SocialContent on Deductive Reasoning:an fMRI Study. Human Brain Mapping.26:30–43
Niki Verschueren, Walter Schaeken, and Ge′ry d’Ydewalle(2005). A dual-processspecification of causal conditional reasoning. Thinking&Rrasoning.
Oda.R., Hiraishi.K., Matsumoto-Oda.(2006).Does an altruist-detection cognitivemechanism function independently of a cheater-detection cognitive mechanism?Studies using Wason selection tasks. Evolution and Human Behavior.27(5),366–380.
Overton,W.F.,Newman,J.L(1982).Cognitive Development:ACompetence-activation/utilization Approach. In T.M.Field, A. Huston,H.C.Quay,L.Troll&G.E.Finley(Eds.), Review of Human Development. NewYork: Wiley.
Overton,W.F,Newman,J.L.(1985),Scientific Methodologies and theCompetence-moderator-performance Issue. In E. Nei-mark, R.D. Lisi,&J.Newman(Eds.), Moderators of Competence.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Overton,W.F.,Newman,J.L.(1990),Competence and Procedures:Constraints on theDevelopment of Logical Reasoning.In W.F.Overton(Ed.),Reasoning,Necessityand Logic:Developmental Perspectives(PP.1-34),Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Platt, R.&Griggs, R.(1993) Cognition48,163–192.
Politzer, G. and Nguyen-Xuan, A.1992: Reasoning About Conditional Promises andWarnings: Darwinian Algorithms, Mental Models, Relevance Judgments, orpragmatic schemas? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A,401-21
Raz, N.(2000). Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance:Integration of structural and functional findings. The handbook of aging andcognition,2,1–90.
Raz, N.(2004). The aging brain: Structural changes and their implications forcognitive aging. New frontiers in cognitive aging,115–133.
Rellihan M（2012）Adaptationism and adaptive thinking in evolutionary psychology.Philosophical Psychology.25(2):245-277.
Rips,L.J.(1999).Deductive reasoning.In R.A.Wilson&F.C.Keil(Eds.),The MITEncyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.pp.225-226.
Schulz,Armin.W(2012). Philosophy of Behavioral Biology Boston Studies in thePhilosophy of Science. Heuristic Evolutionary Psychology.282, pp217-234
Smith,E.A.,S. Bowles,&H. Gintis(2000). Cooperation and Costly Signaling. Journalof Theoretical Biology213:103–119.
Sober E(1988).What is evolutionary altruism? Canada Journal ofPhiligophy,14:75-99.
Sperber.D,Francesco Cara,Vittorio Girotto(1995). Relevance theory explains theselection task.Cognition.57(1):31–95
Sperber, D.,&Girotto, V.(2002). Use or misuse of the selection task?Rejoinder toFiddick, Cosmides and Tooby.Cognition:International journal of cognitivescience,85(3),277-290
Stone, V. E., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Kroll, N.&Knight, R. T.(2002) Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA99,11531–11536.
Trivers, R.L.(1971).The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review ofBiology,46,35-57.
Ulrich Müller, Willis F. Overton, and Kelly Reene(2001).Development of ConditionalReasoning: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of cognition and development.2(1):27–49.
Varvatsoulias. G.,(2010). Massive modularity? The relationship betweencontext-relevance, information encapsulation and functional specialization.Europe’s Journal of Psychology,6(4),209-226.
Venet,M.,Markovits,H(2001).Understanding Uncertainty with Abstract ConditionalPremises. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,47:74-99
Vittorio Girotto Katya Tentori(2008). Is domain-general thinking a domain-specificadaptation? Mind Soc.7:167–175
Wason, P.(1966) in New Horizons in Psychology, ed. Foss, B.(Penguin,Harmondsworth, U.K.), pp.135–151.
Wason,P.C.,&Johson-Laird,P.N.(1972).Psychology of reasoning: Structure andcontent.London:B.T.Batsford.
Wason, P.&Johnson-Laird, P.(1972) Psychology of Reasoning: Structure andContent Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wason, P.(1983) in Thinking and Reasoning: Psychological Approaches, ed. Evans, J.S. B. T.(Routledge&Kegan Paul, London), pp.44–75.
West, R. L.(1996). An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitiveaging. Psychological Bulletin,120(2),272–292.
Wildman.T.M.,Fletcher,H.J.Developmental Increases and Decreases in Solutions ofConditional Syllogism Problems. Developmental Psychology,1977,13.P630-636.
Williams,R.N.(2000).Epistemology.In A.E.Kazdin(Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Vol.3:.225-232.
Wilson EO(1976). Sociology: The New Syuthesis. Cambridge, mass: HarvardUniversity Press.
Zahavi, A., and A. Zahavi(1997).The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece ofDarwin’s Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.