Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

People demonstrate systematic logical failures when reasoning about conditional statements. In the Wason selectiontask, a test typically interpreted as a measure of abstract deductive reasoning, only about 10% of participants choose the cardsprescribed by deductive logic. One possibility is that people are simply bad at hypothesis testing – biased toward confirmingrather than falsifying abstract conditional rules. A second possibility, however, is that performance on the task is stronglyinfluenced by pragmatic effects of linguistic interpretation. In three experiments, we find that manipulating the instructions toemphasize falsification and that changing the formulation of the rule to increase the pragmatic salience of the correct choicesimproves performance. These results arise because people do not merely decode the logical content of linguistic expressions.Rather they attempt to understand the communicative intentions of the individual who produced the expression even in abstractreasoning tasks.