CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,471Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge

The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task

Cosmides, Leda·1989·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In order to successfully engage in social exchange--cooperation between two or more individuals for mutual benefit--humans must be able to solve a number of complex computational problems, and do so with special efficiency. Following Marr (1982), Cosmides (1985) and Cosmides and Tooby (1989) used evolutionary principles to develop a computational theory of these adaptive problems. Specific hypotheses concerning the structure of the algorithms that govern how humans reason about social exchange were derived from this computational theory. This article presents a series of experiments designed to test these hypotheses, using the Wason selection task, a test of logical reasoning. Part I reports experiments testing social exchange theory against the availability theories of reasoning; Part II reports experiments testing it against Cheng and Holyoak's (1985) permission schema theory. The experimental design included eight critical tests designed to choose between social exchange theory and these other two families of theories; the results of all eight tests support social exchange theory. The hypothesis that the human mind includes cognitive processes specialized for reasoning about social exchange predicts the content effects found in these experiments, and parsimoniously explains those that have already been reported in the literature. The implications of this line of research for a modular view of human reasoning are discussed, as well as the utility of evolutionary biology in the development of computational theories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the abstract Wason four-card problem, very few people give the correct answer, which is X and 1.

    “When the problem is given to people in the abstract form just described, very few people give the correct answer, which is”

    From Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases (1997) · cites this paper as Cosmides, 1989

  • When the Wason four-card task is put into a familiar context, almost everyone answers correctly.

    “However, when the task is put into a familiar context, almost everyone answers correctly.”

    From Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases (1997) · cites this paper as Cosmides, 1989

  • In the Grover High School version of the Wason four-card problem, 89 percent of subjects state correctly which cards need to be turned over.

    “89 percent of subjects state correctly which cards need to be turned over (Cosmides, 1989).”

    From Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases (1997) · cites this paper as Cosmides, 1989

  • The effect of social and ecological complexity may be limited to influencing more specialized, and potentially domain-specific, forms of cognition.

    “Our findings suggest that the effect of social and ecological complexity may be limited to influencing more specialized, and potentially domain-specific forms of cognition (188-196).”

    From The evolution of self-control. (2014) · cites this paper as [190]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cosmides, L.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Cosmides, Leda
ORCID
Cosmides, Leda
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1989-04
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
187-276
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1
OpenAlex
W2045163169
Cited by
2,471
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 94
FWCI
74.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Keywords
social exchange theory, Wason selection task, logical reasoning, evolutionary psychology, content effects, human reasoning, conditional reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, causal reasoning
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Cognition, Biological Evolution, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Logic, Male, Psychological Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review