↓ Skip to main content

Asking the right questions about the psychology of human inquiry: Nine open challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
Title
Asking the right questions about the psychology of human inquiry: Nine open challenges
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13423-018-1470-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Coenen, Jonathan D. Nelson, Todd M. Gureckis

Abstract

The ability to act on the world with the goal of gaining information is core to human adaptability and intelligence. Perhaps the most successful and influential account of such abilities is the Optimal Experiment Design (OED) hypothesis, which argues that humans intuitively perform experiments on the world similar to the way an effective scientist plans an experiment. The widespread application of this theory within many areas of psychology calls for a critical evaluation of the theory's core claims. Despite many successes, we argue that the OED hypothesis remains lacking as a theory of human inquiry and that research in the area often fails to confront some of the most interesting and important questions. In this critical review, we raise and discuss nine open questions about the psychology of human inquiry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 23%
Student > Master 24 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 7 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 36%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Computer Science 7 5%
Linguistics 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 43 33%