CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 272Education and Critical Thinking DevelopmentEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teaching Reasoning

Open access
Nisbett, Richard E., Fong, Geoffrey T., Lehman, Darrin R., Cheng, Patricia W.·1987·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.3672116
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Twentieth-century psychologists have been pessimistic about teaching reasoning, prevailing opinion suggesting that people may possess only domain-specific rules, rather than abstract rules; this would mean that training a rule in one domain would not produce generalization to other domains. Alternatively, it was thought that people might possess abstract rules (such as logical ones) but that these are induced developmentally through self-discovery methods and cannot be trained. Research suggests a much more optimistic view: even brief formal training in inferential rules may enhance their use for reasoning about everyday life events. Previous theorists may have been mistaken about trainability, in part because they misidentified the kind of rules that people use naturally.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.3672116

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. NEW YORK TIMES: 23 (6 3 1982).
  2. JEPSON, C, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 6: 494 (1983).
  3. Jowett, B., The Dialogues of Plato: 785 (1875).
  4. Thorndike, E., Princples of Teaching: 246 (1906).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–271 of 271

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R., & Cheng, P. W.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Fong, Geoffrey T.
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
1987-10-30
Volume
238
Issue
4827
Pages
625-631
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.3672116
OpenAlex
W4249755205
Cited by
272
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
50.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh038466-03)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (1 RO1 MH38466)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
reasoning, reasoning training, inference rules, abstract rules, domain-specific rules, transfer of training, rule induction, formal instruction, everyday reasoning
MeSH terms
Education, Humans, Learning, Logic, Statistics as Topic

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