General aptitude and the assumption of truth in deductively rational reasoning about probable but false antecedent to consequent relations

• Authors: Walter Schroyens , Lieve Fleerackers , Sunile Maes

Abstracts

EN

Two experiments (N1= 117 andN2= 245) on reasoning with knowledge-rich conditionals showed a main effect of logical validity, which was due to the negative effect of counter-examples being smaller for valid than for invalid arguments. These findings support the thesis that some people tend to inhibit background inconsistent with the hypothetical truth of the premises, while others tend to abandon the implicit truth-assumption when they have factual evidence to the contrary. Findings show that adhering to the truth-assumption in the face of conflicting evidence to the contrary requires an investment of time and effort which people with a higher general aptitude are more likely to do.

Keywords

EN

rationality; reasoning; conditionals; truth

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie
• Journal: Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Year: 2010
• Volume: 6
• Pages: 88-102

Contributors

author

Walter Schroyens

• Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Belgium

author

Lieve Fleerackers

• Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Belgium

author

Sunile Maes

• Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Belgium

References

• Adams, E. W. (1975).The logic of conditionals.Dordrecht: Reidel.
• Anderson, J. R. (1990).The adaptive character of thought.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Baron, J. (1990). Reflectiveness and rational thinking: Response to Duemler and Mayer (1988).Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 391-392.
• Byrne, R. M. J. (1989). Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals.Cognition, 31, 61-83.
• Chater, N., Oaksford, M., Nakisa, R., & Redington, M. (2003). Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 63-86.
• Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., & Rist, R. (1991). Conditional reasoning and causation.Memory & Cognition, 19, 274-282.
• De Neys, W., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2002). Causal conditional reasoning and semantic memory retrieval: A test of the semantic memory framework.Memory & Cognition, 30, 908-920.
• De Neys, W., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2003). Inference suppression and semantic memory retrieval: Every counterexample counts.Memory & Cognition, 31, 581-595.
• De Neys, W., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). Working memory and counterexample retrieval for causal conditionals.Thinking and Reasoning, 11, 123-150.
• Duemler, D., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Hidden costs of reflectiveness: Aspects of successful scientific reasoning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 419-423.
• Engle, R. W., Conway, A., Tuholski, S., & Shisler, R. (1995). A resource account of inhibition.Psychological Science, 6, 122-125.
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and Human reasoning. An assessment of the deduction paradigm.Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978-996.
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007).Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement.Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
• Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993).Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (2004).If.New York: Oxford University Press.
• Evers, A., & Lucassen, W. (1991).DAT'83: Differentiële Aanleg Testserie.Lisse, Netherlands: SWETS & Zeitlinger.
• Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe.American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
• Glass, A. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1986).Cognition(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
• Gorfein, D. S., & Macleod, C. M. (Eds.). (2007).Inhibition in cognition.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),Studies in syntax: Speech acts(Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
• Gupta, A., & Belnap, N. (1993).The revision theory of truth.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Holt, L. (1999). Rationality is still hard work: Some further notes on the disruptive effects of deliberation.Philosophical Psychology, 12, 215-219.
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference.Psychological Review, 109, 646-678.
• Levinson, S. C. (2000).Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Mandel, D. R. (2000). On the meaning and function of normative analysis: Conceptual blur in the rationality debate?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 686-687.
• Markovits, H. (1995). Conditional reasoning with false premises: Fantasy and information retrieval.British Journal of Psychology, 13, 1-11.
• Markovits, H., & Schroyens, W. (2007). Reasoning with false premises and inhibition of real-life information.Experimental Psychology, 54, 38-43.
• Markovits, H., Venet, M., Janveau-Brennan, G., Malfait, N., Pion, N., & Vadeboncoeur, I. (1996). Reasoning in young children: Fantasy and information retrieval.Child Development, 67, 2857-2872.
• Morris, A. K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (1998). Understanding of logical necessity: Developmental antecedents and cognitive consequences.Child Development, 69, 721-741.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1986).Reflections on reasoning.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2003). Computational levels and conditional inference: Reply to Schroyens and Schaeken (2003).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 140-156.
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007).Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Oaksford, M., Chater, N., & Larkin, J. (2000). Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 883-899.
• Ohm, E., & Thompson V. A. (2006). Conditional probability and pragmatic conditionals: Dissociating truth and effectiveness.Thinking & Reasoning, 12, 257-280.
• Ormerod, T. C. (1997). Rationalities 1 and 2: Dual processes or different task demands?Cahiers De Psychologie Cognitive, 16, 181-189.
• Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiental information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
• Politzer, G., & Bourmaud, G. (2002). Deductive reasoning from uncertain conditionals.British Journal of Psychology, 93, 345-381.
• Politzer, G., & Braine, M. D. S. (1991). Responses to inconsistent premises cannot count as suppression of valid inferences.Cognition, 38, 103-108.
• Rips, L. J. (1989). The psychology of knights and knaves.Cognition, 31, 85-116.
• Rips, L. J. (1990). Paralogical reasoning: Evans, Johnson-Laird, and Byrne on liar and truth-teller puzzles.Cognition, 36, 291-314.
• Rips, L. J. (2001). Two kinds of reasoning.Psychological Science, 12, 129-134.
• Schroyens, W. (1997). Meta-propositional reasoning about the truth or falsity of propositions.Psychologica Belgica, 37, 219-247.
• Schroyens, W. (2004). Conceptual muddles: Truth vs. truthfulness, logical vs. psychological validity, and the non-monotonic vs. defeasible nature of human inferences. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.),Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(p. 38). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Schroyens, W. (2009). OnIsandOught:Levels of analysis and the descriptive versus normative analysis of human reasoning.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 101-102.
• Schroyens, W. (2010). A critical review of thinking about what is true, possible, and irrelevant in reasoning from or reasoning about conditional propositions.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 897-921. doi: 10.1080/09541440902928915
• Schroyens, W. (in press). Logic and/in psychology: The paradoxes of material implication and psychologism in the cognitive science of human reasoning. In M. Oaksford (Ed.),The psychology of conditionals.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Schroyens, W., & Schaeken, W. (2003). A critique of Oaksford, Chater, and Larkin's (2000) conditional probability model of conditional reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 140-149.
• Schroyens, W., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1996). Meta-propositional reasoning with knight-knave problems: The importance of being hypothesized.Psychologica Belgica, 36, 145-169.
• Schroyens, W., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1999). Error and bias in meta-propositional reasoning: A case of the mental model theory.Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 29-65.
• Schroyens, W., Schaeken, W., & Handley, S. (2003). In search of counter examples: Deductive rationality in human reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1129-1145.
• Shelton, H. S. (1912). The limits of deductive reasoning.Mind, 81, 79-83.
• Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking.Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 99-111.
• Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). Everyday conditional reasoning: A working memory-dependent tradeoff between counterexample and likelihood use.Memory & Cognition, 33, 107-119.
• Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking.Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 99-111.
• Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). Everyday conditional reasoning: A working memory-dependent tradeoff between counterexample and likelihood use.Memory & Cognition, 33, 107-119.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10053-008-0079-z