The presented empirical research is based on a new model for the categorical syllogisms, described and partially tested elsewhere. This model assumes that deriving a conclusion involves a pattern completion process, similar to the completion of perceptual patterns. Specifically, inferring a conclusion would require the generation of the missing part of an abstract pattern of logical semantic features. This pattern is named schema, because it is organized around a particular argumentative goal. Such a schema emerges through the frequent contact with a corresponding class of argumentative experiences. As, presumably, the usual pragmatic argumentative contexts imply predominantly valid syllogisms, pragmatic syllogistic schemas would emerge mainly for them. These pragmatic schemas for the valid syllogisms are supposed to be based on a particular mixed semantics of their syllogistic judgments, including both intensional (class-property) and extensional (subclass-class) relationships. The recognition of these schemas can be influenced by the linguistic cues of the verbal expression of the syllogisms. To test this particular prediction, the linguistic format of a set of 24 abstract categorical syllogisms (12 valid, 12 invalid) was varied. The linguistic cues of the L format task would favor the recognition of the logical features of the assumed syllogistic schemas with a mixed logical semantics of the valid syllogisms. The N format task, with no explicit linguistic cues for those logical features, would hinder the recognition of the above-mentioned schemas for the valid syllogisms. The administration order of the two tasks was also varied. The study included 192 university students. The data supported considerably the expected format effects on the correctness of the chosen answers for the valid syllogisms (with higher performances for the L format) in the relevant between-subjects and within-subjects comparisons, and some of the predicted order effects. Mental models theory cannot explain the obtained results.
Leaders’ Reactions to 360° Feedback: Examining Individual Attributes and Format Effects
