Dual processes and mental models in the development of conditional reasoning

1996 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1086-1114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan St. B. T. Evans ◽  
Charles E. Ellis ◽  
Stephen E. Newstead

Four experiments are reported which attempt to externalize subjects’ mental representation of conditional sentences, using novel research methods. In Experiment 1, subjects were shown arrays of coloured shapes and asked to rate the degree to which they appeared to be true of conditional statements such as “If the figure is green then it is a triangle”. The arrays contained different distributions of the four logically possible cases in which the antecedent or consequent is true or false: TT, TF, FT, and FF. For example, a blue triangle would be FT for the conditional quoted above. In Experiments 2 to 4, subjects were able to construct their own arrays to make conditionals either true or false with any distribution of the four cases they wished to choose. The presence and absence of negative components was varied, as was the form of the conditional, being either “if then” as above or “only if”: “The figure is green only if it is a triangle”. The first finding was that subjects represent conditionals in fuzzy way: conditionals that include some counter-example TF cases (Experiment 1) may be rated as true, and such cases are often included when subjects construct an array to make the rule true (Experiments 2 to 4). Other findings included a strong tendency to include psychologically irrelevant FT and FF cases in constructed arrays, presumably to show that conditional statements only apply some of the time. A tendency to construct cases in line with the “matching bias” reported on analogous tasks in the literature was found, but only in Experiment 4, where the number of symbols available to construct each case was controlled. The findings are discussed in relation to the major contemporary theories of conditional reasoning based upon inference rules and mental models, neither of which can account for all the results.


1993 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 653-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Ormerod ◽  
Kenneth I. Manktelow ◽  
Gregory V. Jones

Two experiments are reported which compare conditional reasoning with three types of rule. These consist of two types of rule that have been widely studied previously, if p then q and p only if q, together with a third type, q if p. In both experiments, the p only if q type of rule yields a different pattern of performance from the two other types of rule. Experiment 1 is an abstract rule-evaluation task and demonstrates differential effects of temporal order and of suppositional bias. Experiment 2 investigates rule generation, rephrasing, and comparison, and demonstrates differential effects of temporal order and of thematic content. An analysis of the results is offered in terms of biases and mental models. Effects of rule form and context can be explained as reflecting the different sequences in which mental models are created for each rule form. However, it is necessary to consider the internal structure of individual mental models to account for effects arising from temporal ordering of rules.


1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 289-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Barrouillet ◽  
Jean-Francois Lecas

Cognition ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Barrouillet ◽  
Nelly Grosset ◽  
Jean-François Lecas

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Gauffroy ◽  
Pierre Barrouillet

2002 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 839-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Barrouillet ◽  
Jean-François Lecas

We have recently shown that children interpret conditional sentences with binary terms (e.g., male/female) in both the antecedent and the consequent as biconditionals (Barrouillet & Lecas, 1998). We hypothesized that the same effect can be obtained with conditionals that do not contain binary terms provided that they are embedded in a context that restricts to only two the possible values on both the antecedent and the consequent. In the present experiment, we asked 12-year-old children, 15-year-old children, and adults to draw conclusions from conditional syllogisms that involved three types of conditional sentence: (1) conditionals with binary terms (BB), (2) conditionals with non-binary terms (NN), and (3) conditionals with non-binary terms embedded in a restrictive context (NNR). As we predicted, BB conditionals elicited more biconditional response patterns than did NN conditionals in all age groups. On the other hand, manipulating the context had the same effect in children but not in adults. Content and context constraints on conditional reasoning along with developmental issues are discussed within the framework of the mental models theory.


1997 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliet Richardson ◽  
Thomas C. Ormerod

Two experiments are reported that investigate whether the logical equivalence of conditionals and disjunctives is paralleled by a psychological equivalence. In these experiments, subjects rephrased from one form into the other. Experiment 1 demonstrated strong effects of familiarity and causality of rule content. Similar findings were found in Experiment 2 with a different conditional rule syntax. An account of the experiments is given in terms of mental models theory: In this account, task performance can be seen to depend upon the extent to which the model sets used by subjects to generate rephrasings are complete, task content being the most important factor affecting model set completion. A “Minimal Completion” strategy is proposed to operate in the absence of thematic content. The experiments also falsify the long-held assumption that conditionals with negative antecedents are always interpreted as their disjunctive equivalents. This raises doubts about the mental models explanation for matching bias in conditional reasoning.


2020 ◽  
pp. 95-118
Author(s):  
Peter Langland-Hassan

Three types of conditional are distinguished: the material conditional, indicative conditional, and subjunctive/counterfactual conditional. The apparent difference in truth conditions of each is suggestive of different psychological procedures used in the evaluation of each. The psychology of the material conditional is then examined. Despite procedures in formal logic that are suggestive of sui generis imaginative states (e.g., “assuming” a proposition for conditional proof, or for reductio), we need not countenance the use of such states within the psychological procedures used to carry out the inferences. Further, work in psychology has long suggested that humans do not, as a rule, reason in accordance with normative standards appropriate to the material conditional. A popular alternative proposal in psychology is that conditional reasoning involves the use of mental models (Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 2002). The use of mental models is shown to be consistent with conditional reasoning involving only sequences of beliefs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document