Cited by 1,058Science Education and PedagogyAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningCognitive Science and Education Research

Dual space search during scientific reasoning

Open access
Klahr, David, Dunbar, Kevin·1988·Cognitive Science

Abstract

The purpose of the two studies reported here was to develop an integrated model of the scientific reasoning process. Subjects were placed in a simulated scientific discovery context by first teaching them how to use an electronic device and then asking them to discover how a hitherto unencountered function worked. To do this task, subjects had to formulate hypotheses based on their prior knowledge, conduct experiments, and evaluate the results of their experiments. In the first study, using 20 adult subjects, we identified two main strategies that subjects used to generate new hypotheses. One strategy was to search memory and the other was to generalize from the results of previous experiments. We described the former group as searching an hypothesis space, and the latter as searching an experiment space. In a second study, with 10 adults, we investigated how subjects search the hypothesis space by instructing them to state all the hypotheses that they could think of prior to conducting any experiments. Following this phase, subjects were then allowed to conduct experiments. Subjects who could not think of the correct rule in the hypothesis generation phase discovered the correct rule only by generalizing from the results of experiments in the experimental phase. Both studies provide support for the view that scientific reasoning can be characterized as search in two problem spaces. By extending Simon and Lea's (1974) Generalized Rule Inducer, we present a general model of Scientific Discovery as Dual Search (SDDS) that shows how search in two problem spaces (an hypothesis space and an experiment space) shapes hypothesis generation, experimental design, and the evaluation of hypotheses. The model also shows how these processes interact with each other. Finally, we interpret earlier findings about the psychology of scientific reasoning in terms of the SDDS model.

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 · 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The possibility that inquiry-based learning may primarily follow an inductive or deductive reasoning approach is captured in the framework through the use of various sub-phases within the Conceptualization and Investigation phases.

    “The possibility that inquiry-based learning may primarily follow an inductive or deductive reasoning approach, as Klahr and Dunbar (1988) discuss, is captured in Fig. 3 through the use of various sub-phases within the Conceptualization and Investigation phases.”

    From Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle (2015) · cites this paper as Klahr and Dunbar (1988)

    The opening summary and §6 describe two strategies for generating hypotheses: drawing on prior knowledge and generalizing from experimental results. This supports the distinction between hypothesis-led and evidence-led inquiry, but the paper does not explicitly characterize them as deductive versus inductive approaches to inquiry-based learning. The Fig. 3 sub-phases are the citing authors’ framework, not a claim attributed to Klahr and Dunbar. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Bourne, L.E., & Dominowski, R.L. (1972). Thinking. Annual Review of Psychology, 23. 105-130.
  2. Bourne, L.E., Jr., & Restle, F. (1959). Mathematical theory of concept identification. Psy- chological Review, 66, 278-296.
  3. Bower, G.H., & Trabasso, T.R. (1964). Concept identification. In R.C. Atkinson (Ed.), Studies in mathematical psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  4. CarbonelI, J.G. (1986). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, & T.M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach, Volume II. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmr\nn Publishers.
  5. Cohen, P.R., & Feigenbaum, E.A. (Eds.). (1982). Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 3. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  6. Gorman, M.E. (1986). How the possibility of error affects falsification on a task that models scientific problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 77. 85-96.
  7. Gorman, M.E., & Gorman, M.E. (1984). A comparison of disconfirmatory, confirmatory, and control strategies on Wason's 2-4-6 task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psy- chology, 36A, 629-648.
  8. Gorman, M.E., Stafford, A., & Gorman, M.E. (1987). Disconfirmation and dual hypotheses on a more difficult version of Wason's 2-4-6 task. The Quarterly Journal of Experi- mental Psychology, 39A, l-28.
  9. Greeno, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1984). Problem solving and reasoning. In R.C. Atkinson, R. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R.D. Lute (Eds.), Stevens' handbook of experimentalpsy- chology. New York: Wiley.
  10. Gregg, L.W., & Simon, H.A. (1%7). Process models and stochastic theories of simple con- cept formation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4, 246-276. 15516709, 1988, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1, Wiley Online Library on [17/08/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
  11. Holland, J., Holyoak, K., Nisbett, R.E., & Thagard, P. (1986). Induciion: Processes of infer- ence, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Hunt, E.B. (1962). Concept learning: An information processing problem. New York: Wiley.
  13. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1985, August). Hypothesis testing in rule discovery: Strategy and structure. Paper presented at the Tenth Research Conference on Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making, Helsinki, Finland.
  14. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The strucfure of scienfific revolufions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Kuhn, D., & Phelps, E. (1982). The development of problem solving strategies. In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. New York: Academic.
  16. Langley, P., Simon, H.A., Bradshaw, G.L., & Zytkow, J.M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Compulational explorations of the creative processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Lenat, D. (1977). On automated scientific theory formation: A case study using the AM pro- gram. In J.E. Hayes, D. Michie, & L. Mikulich (Eds.), Machine Intelligence 9. New York: Halstead Press.
  18. Levine, M. (1966). Hypothesis behavior by humans during discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 331-338.
  19. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Cientner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Medin, D.L., 8c Smith, E.E. (1984). Concept and concept formation. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 35. 113-138.
  21. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (Ed.), The psycholo& of compuler vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  22. Mitchell, T.M. (1979). An analysis of generalization as a search problem. International Joint Conference on Arlificial Intelligence, 6, 577-582.
  23. Mitchell, T.M., Utgoff, P.E., & Banerji, R.B. (1983). Learning by experimentation: Acquir- ing and refining problem solving heuristics. In R.S. Michaliski, J.G. Carbonell, & T.M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach, Volume 1. Palo Alto, CA: Tioga.
  24. Mitroff, 1.1. (1974). The subjective side of science. New York: Elsevier.
  25. Mynatt, CR., Doherty, M.E., & Tweney, R.D. (1977). Confirmation bias in a simulated re- search environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 85-95.
  26. Mynatt, C.R., Doherty, M.E., &Tweney, R.d. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and dis- confirmation in a simulated research environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395-406.
  27. Neimark, E.D., & Santa, J.L. (1975). Thinking and concept attainment. Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 173-205.
  28. O'Brien, D.P., Costa, G., & Overton, W.F. (1986). Evaluations of causal and conditional hypotheses. The Quarterly Journal of Experimenlai Psychology, 38A. 493-512.
  29. Rasmussen, J. (1981). Models of mental strategies in process plant diagnosis. In J. Rasmussen & W.B. Rouse (Eds.), Human detection and diagnosis of system failures. New York: Plenum Press. NATO Conference Series.
  30. Restle, F., & Greene, J.G. (1970). Introduction to mathematical psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  31. Robinson, L.B., & Hastie, R. (1985). Revision of beliefs when a hypothesis is eliminated from consideration. Journal of Experimenral Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor- mance, 11, 443-456.
  32. Shrager, J. (1985). Inslruclionless learning: Discovery of the mental model of a complex-device. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University.
  33. Shrager, J., & Klahr, D. (1986). Instructionless learning about a complex device. Infernational Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25, 153-189.
  34. Siegler, R.S. (1987). The perils of averaging data over strategies: An example from children's addition. Journal of Experimenlal Psychology: General, 116, 250-264.
  35. Simon, H.A., & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view. In L.W. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  36. Stavy, R., Strauss, S., Orpaz, N., & Carmi, G. (1982). U-Shaped behavioral growth in ratio comparisons. In S. Strauss (Ed.), U-Shaped behavioralgrowth. New York: Academic.
  37. Tukey, D.D. (1986). A philosophical and empirical analysis of subjects' modes of inquiry in Wason's 2-4-6 task. The Quarferly Journal of Experimenral Psychology, 38A, 5-33.
  38. Tweney, R.D., Doherty, M.E., Worrier, W.J., Pliske, D.B., Mynatt, CR., Gross, K.A. & Arkkelin, D.L. (1980). Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 109-123.
  39. Wason, P.C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.
  40. Wason, P.C. (1962). Reply to Wetherick. Quarterly Journal of Experimenlal Psychology, 14, 250.
  41. Wetherick, N.E. (1962). Eliminative and enumerative behaviour in a conceptual task. Quarferly Journal of tiperimental Psychology, 14, 246-249.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Klahr, David
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1988-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
1-48
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
OpenAlex
W2131370811
Cited by
1,058
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 35
FWCI
76.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
scientific reasoning, scientific discovery, hypothesis space, hypothesis generation, experimental design, problem space search, rule induction, memory search

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