Robust biases have been found in syllogistic reasoning that relate to the figure of premises and to the directionality of terms in given conclusions. Mental models theorists (e.g., Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991) have explained figural bias by assuming that reasoners can more readily form integrated models of premises when their middle terms are contiguous than when they are not. Biases associated with the direction of conclusion terms have been interpreted as reflecting a natural mode of reading off conclusions from models according to a "first-in, first-out principle." We report an experiment investigating the impact of systematic figural and conclusion-direction manipulations on the processing effort directed at syllogistic components, as indexed through a novel inspection-time method. The study yielded reliable support for mental-models predictions concerning the nature and locus of figural and directionality effects in syllogistic reasoning. We argue that other accounts of syllogistic reasoning seem less able to accommodate the full breadth of inspection-time findings observed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.120DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

syllogistic reasoning
12
effects syllogistic
8
syllogistic
5
figural
4
figural effects
4
syllogistic evaluation
4
evaluation paradigm
4
paradigm inspection-time
4
inspection-time analysis
4
analysis robust
4

Similar Publications

The experience of meaning has been found to be mapped onto spatial proximity whereby coherent-in contrast to incoherent-elements in a set are mentally represented as closer together in physical space. In a series of four experiments, we show that spatial representation of coherence is malleable and can employ other meaningful concrete dimensions of space that are made salient. When given task instructions cueing verticality, participants represented coherence in the upper vertical location when making judgements about the logical validity of realistic (Experiments 1 and 4) and unrealistic syllogistic scenarios (Experiment 3).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Recent studies have shown that in some reasoning tasks people with Autism Spectrum Disorder perform better than typically developing people. This paper compares four such tasks, namely a syllogistic task, two decision-making tasks, and a task from the heuristics and biases literature, the aim being to identify common structure as well as differences. In the terminology of David Marr's three levels of cognitive systems, the tasks show commonalities on the computational level in terms of the effect of contextual stimuli, though an in-depth analysis of such contexts provides certain distinguishing features in the algorithmic level.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

A Bayesian model of legal syllogistic reasoning.

Artif Intell Law (Dordr)

April 2023

School of Engineering and Informatics, The University of Sussex, Chichester I, CI-128, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RH UK.

Bayesian approaches to legal reasoning propose causal models of the relation between evidence, the credibility of evidence, and ultimate hypotheses, or verdicts. They assume that legal reasoning is the process whereby one infers the posterior probability of a verdict based on observed evidence, or facts. In practice, legal reasoning does not operate quite that way.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: The belief-bias effect is a tendency to evaluate syllogistic statements based on believability rather than on formal logic validity. Following this rationale, the study examines desirability bias as the tendency to evaluate syllogistic conclusions based on their desirability when reasoning is conducted on personality-relevant categorical syllogisms.

Methods: For this purpose, 60 syllogisms were constructed based on the items of the Big Five questionnaire.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Researchers have documented differential effects of emotion on cognitive processes, debating whether emotion may increase or decrease the response time and accuracy of logical thinking. The current study proposed that differences may be due to variability occurring across topic and categorical emotions, such that assessment of several basic emotional responses in the context of performing logical reasoning tasks may provide an initial indication of these differences. Utilizing syllogisms composed of controversial statements, the current study evoked a variety of emotional responses and tested the accuracy of participants' basic logical thinking.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!