The effect of figure on syllogistic reasoning

Several investigators of reasoning with abstract categorical syllogisms have noted that the four figures of the classical syllogism, which vary in the order in which terms occur in the major and minor premises, resemble the four three-stage mediation paradigms in paired associate learning. On the basis of the analogy, figure differences have been predicted and some support has been obtained for these predictions. The present paper proposes an alternative information processing explanation for figure effects based upon contradictions between the correct conclusions that follow from forward and backward processing of the premises. This explanation, in contrast to the associative explanation, successfully predicts which premise combinations will show figure effects as well as the nature of the specific errors which will occur.     

Spatial Mental Models in Linear Reasoning

There is ample evidence that linear syllogisms are solved by constructing mental models, which semantically represent states in the world (Evans, Newstead, &; Byrne, 1993; Vandierendonck &; De Vooght, 1996 a). Such models are built by combining the information presented in the premises into an integrated representation, which is often thought of as spatial. The present article (a) presents evidence for an integrated spatial representation of premise information and (b) proposes a model construction process based on scanning processes that locate the position where new information is to be integrated into the spatial model.     

The source of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning.

In studies of the belief bias effect in syllogistic reasoning, an interaction between logical validity and the believability of the conclusion has been found; in essence, logic has a larger effect on unbelievable than on believable conclusions. Two main explanations have been proposed for this finding. The selective scrutiny account claims that people focus on the conclusion and only engage in logical processing if this is found to be unbelievable; while the misinterpreted necessity account claims that subjects misunderstand what is meant by logical necessity and respond on the basis of believability when indeterminate syllogisms are presented. Experiments 1 and 2 compared the predictions of these two theories by examining whether the interaction would disappear if only determinate syllogisms were used. It did, thus providing strong support for the misinterpreted necessity explanation. However, the results are also consistent with a version of the mental models theory, and so Experiment 3 was carried out to compare these two explanations. The mental models theory received strong support, as it did also in the follow-up Experiments 4 and 5. It is concluded that people try to construct a mental model of the premises but, if there is a believable conclusion consistent with the first model they produce, then they fail to construct alternative models.     

Syllogistic reasoning tasks and working memory: Evidence from sequential presentation of premises

An experiment is reported concerning the role of working memory components in syllogistic reasoning. In this study, the syllogistic premises were presented sequentially and subjects attempted the syllogisms with and without three secondary tasks (articulatory suppression; spatial suppression and verbal random generation). Taking account of possible trade-offs among the dual tasks, it appeared that syllogisms with sequentially presented premises markedly loaded the central executive and the phonological loop components of working memory and also showed an involvement of the visuo-spatial scratchpad. It appears that the “slave” systems of working memory were more heavily loaded when sequential presentation of premises was used than was found previously with simultaneous premise presentation (Gilhooly, Logie, Wetherick & Wynn, 1993).     

Syllogistic reasoning tasks and working memory: Evidence from sequential presentation of premises

An experiment is reported concerning the role of working memory components in syllogistic reasoning. In this study, the syllogistic premises were presented sequentially and subjects attempted the syllogisms with and without three secondary tasks (articulatory suppression; spatial suppression and verbal random generation). Taking account of possible trade-offs among the dual tasks, it appeared that syllogisms with sequentially presented premises markedly loaded the central executive and the phonological loop components of working memory and also showed an involvement of the visuo-spatial scratchpad. It appears that the “slave” systems of working memory were more heavily loaded when sequential presentation of premises was used than was found previously with simultaneous premise presentation (Gilhooly, Logie, Wetherick & Wynn, 1993).     

Syllogistic inference

This paper reviews current psychological theories of syllogistic inference and establishes that despite their various merits they all contain deficiencies as theories of performance. It presents the results of two experiments, one using syllogisms and the other using three-term series problems, designed to elucidate how the arrangement of terms within the premises (the ‘figure’ of the premises) affects performance. These data are used in the construction of a theory based on the hypothesis that reasoners construct mental models of the premises, formulate informative conclusions about the relations in the model, and search for alternative models that are counterexamples to these conclusions. This theory, which has been implemented in several computer programs, predicts that two principal factors should affect performance: the figure of the premises, and the number of models that they call for. These predictions were confirmed by a third experiment.     

Belief bias and relational reasoning

When people evaluate categorical syllogisms, they tend to reject unbelievable conclusions and accept believable ones irrespective of their validity. Typically, this effect is particularly marked for invalid conclusions that are possible, but do not necessarily follow, given the premises. However, smaller believability effects can also be detected for other types of conclusion. Three experiments are reported here, in which an attempt was made to determine whether belief bias effects can manifest themselves on the relational inference task. Subjects evaluated the validity of conclusions such as William the Conqueror was king after the Pyramids were built (temporal task) or Manchester is north of Bournemouth (spatial task) with respect to their premises. All of the majorfindings for equivalent categorical syllogism tasks were replicated. However, the overall size of the main effect of believability appears to be related to task presentation, a phenomenon not previously identified for categorical syllogisms and which current theories of belief bias have difficulty explaining.     

On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning

Three experiments are reported that investigate the weighting attached to logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Substantial belief biases were observed despite controls for possible conversions of the premises. Equally substantial effects of logic were observed despite controls for two possible response biases. A consistent interaction between belief and logic was also recorded; belief bias was more marked on invalid than on valid syllogisms. In all experiments, verbal protocols were recorded and analyzed. These protocols are interpreted in some cases as providing rationalizations for prejudiced decisions and, in other cases, as reflecting a genuine process of premise to conclusion reasoning. In the latter cases, belief bias was minimal but still present. Similarly, even subjects who focus primarily on the conclusion are influenced to an extent by the logic. Thus a conflict between logic and belief is observed throughout, but at several levels of extent.     

Effects of belief and logic on syllogistic reasoning: Eye-movement evidence for selective processing models

Studies of syllogistic reasoning have demonstrated a nonlogical tendency for people to endorse more believable conclusions than unbelievable ones. This belief bias effect is more dominant on invalid syllogisms than valid ones, giving rise to a logic by belief interaction. We report an experiment in which participants' eye movements were recorded in order to provide insights into the nature and time course of the reasoning processes associated with manipulations of conclusion validity and believability. Our main dependent measure was people's inspection times for syllogistic premises, and we tested predictions deriving from three contemporary mental-models accounts of the logic by belief interaction. Results supported recent "selective processing" theories of belief bias (e.g., Evans, 2000; Klauer, Musch, & Naumer, 2000), which assume that the believability of a conclusion biases model construction processes, rather than biasing the search for falsifying models (e.g., Oakhill & Johnson-Laird, 1985) or a response stage of reasoning arising from subjective uncertainty (e.g., Quayle & Ball, 2000). We conclude by suggesting that the eye-movement analyses in reasoning research may provide a useful adjunct to other process-tracing techniques such as verbal protocol analysis.     

Content and strategy in syllogistic reasoning.

Syllogistic reasoning has been investigated as a general deductive process (Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991; Revlis, 1975; Rips, 1994). However, several studies have demonstrated the role of cognitive strategies in this type of reasoning. These strategies focus on the method used by the participants (Ford, 1995; Gilhooly, Logie, Wetherick, & Wynn, 1993) and strategies related to different interpretations of the quantified premises (Roberts, Newstead, & Griggs, 2001). In this paper, we propose that content (as well as individual cognitive differences) is an important factor in inducing a certain strategy or method for syllogistic resolution. Specifically, we suggest that syllogisms with a causal conditional premise that can be extended by an agency premise induce the use of a conditional method. To demonstrate this, we carried out two experiments. Experiment 1 provided evidence that this type of syllogism leads participants to draw the predicted conditional conclusions, in contrast with control content syllogisms. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that the drawing of conditional conclusions is based on a causal conditional to an agent representation of the syllogism premises. These results support the role of content as inducing a particular strategy for syllogistic resolution. The implications of these results are discussed.     

Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning: II. Premise integration and conclusion evaluation

Previous research (Oberauer & Wilhelm, 2000) has shown an inherent directionality between the two terms linked in premises of typical deductive reasoning tasks. With three experiments we investigated the effect of inherent directionality on the time to integrate two premises and for the derivation of a conclusion. We varied figure (i.e., order of terms in the premises) and direction of inference (i.e., order of terms in the conclusion) in deduction tasks from various domains (propositional reasoning, syllogisms, spatial, temporal, and linear order reasoning). Effects of figure on premise reading times varied with the directionality of the relations. Effects of direction of inference reflected the same directionality for a subset of relations. We propose that two factors are jointly responsible for a large part of observed directionality effects in premise integration: the inherent directionality of relational statements and a general advantage for a given-new order of terms in the second premise. Difficulty of deriving a conclusion is affected by the directionality or relations if and only if the relation is semantically asymmetric, so that the directionality must be preserved in the integrated mental model.     

Inhibitory mechanism of the matching heuristic in syllogistic reasoning

A number of heuristic-based hypotheses have been proposed to explain how people solve syllogisms with automatic processes. In particular, the matching heuristic employs the congruency of the quantifiers in a syllogism — by matching the quantifier of the conclusion with those of the two premises. When the heuristic leads to an invalid conclusion, successful solving of these conflict problems requires the inhibition of automatic heuristic processing. Accordingly, if the automatic processing were based on processing the set of quantifiers, no semantic contents would be inhibited. The mental model theory, however, suggests that people reason using mental models, which always involves semantic processing. Therefore, whatever inhibition occurs in the processing implies the inhibition of the semantic contents.     

Response demands and the recruitment of heuristic strategies in syllogistic reasoning

Two experiments investigated whether dealing with a homogeneous subset of syllogisms with time-constrained responses encouraged participants to develop and use heuristics for abstract (Experiment 1) and thematic (Experiment 2) syllogisms. An atmosphere-based heuristic accounted for most responses with both abstract and thematic syllogisms. With thematic syllogisms, a weaker effect of a belief heuristic was also observed, mainly where the correct response was inconsistent with the atmosphere of the premises. Analytic processes appear to have played little role in the time-constrained condition, whereas their involvement increased in a self-paced, unconstrained condition. From a dual-process perspective, the results further specify how task demands affect the recruitment of heuristic and analytic systems of reasoning. Because the syllogisms and experimental procedure were the same as those used in a previous neuroimaging study by Goel, Buchel, Frith, and Dolan (2000), the result also deepen our understanding of the cognitive processes investigated by that study.     

Response demands and the recruitment of heuristic strategies in syllogistic reasoning

Two experiments investigated whether dealing with a homogeneous subset of syllogisms with time-constrained responses encouraged participants to develop and use heuristics for abstract (Experiment 1) and thematic (Experiment 2) syllogisms. An atmosphere-based heuristic accounted for most responses with both abstract and thematic syllogisms. With thematic syllogisms, a weaker effect of a belief heuristic was also observed, mainly where the correct response was inconsistent with the atmosphere of the premises. Analytic processes appear to have played little role in the time-constrained condition, whereas their involvement increased in a self-paced, unconstrained condition. From a dual-process perspective, the results further specify how task demands affect the recruitment of heuristic and analytic systems of reasoning. Because the syllogisms and experimental procedure were the same as those used in a previous neuroimaging study by Goel, Buchel, Frith, and Dolan (2000), the result also deepen our understanding of the cognitive processes investigated by that study.     

The belief-bias effect in formal reasoning: The influence of knowledge on logic

The present study examines the applicability of a rational model of categorical inference (e.g., Revlis, 1975b) to account for the apparently irrational decisions students reach on categorical syllogisms. In Experiment 1, students judged the logical validity of emotionally neutral conclusions to controversial premises. Of the reasoners’ decisions, 80% can be accounted for by the application of rational rules to their idiosyncratic encoding of the syllogistic premises. In Experiment 2, students were asked to solve syllogisms whose conclusions varied in truth value. When asked to reason about controversial, if not emotional, material, students do not suspend rational choice, but rather, their decisions are judicious ones, flowing logically from their idiosyncratic understanding of the materials reasoned about. When errors do occur, they result from an interrupt to rational processes and reflect conflict between competing goals rather than a switch to irrational decision processes.     

Is everyday experience dysfunctional for the development of conditional reasoning?

According to “Comprehension theory” improved performance on invalid conditional syllogisms is a function of the ability to dissociate from a biconditional interpretation. Given that biconditional interpretation is typically used in inferring from everyday conditionals (i.e., circumstantial conditionals), the accumulation of everyday experience should reinforce its usage rather than weaken it and, hence, be dysfunctional in solving invalid conditional syllogisms. This study examines the hypothesis that certain kinds of experiences that are unique to schooling account for improved performance on invalid problems with age. The study estimated the independent effects of age and schooling in Grades 5 and 6 on scores obtained on invalid conditional and class syllogisms. The results point to a negative, albeit very small effect of out-of-school experience and to a considerable positive effect of schooling. Hence, contrary to other cognitive tasks in which schooling operates in the same direction as out-of-school experience, in this case, it apparently breaks daily-life interpretational habits and therefore is crucial for the developmental process.     

Logical reasoning,world knowledge,and mental imagery: Interconnections in cognitive processes

To better understand the role of problem content in verbal reasoning, the effect of two aspects of problem representation on conditional reasoning was examined. Specifically, this study focused on the effect of availability of knowledge schemata and mental imagery on recognition of indeterminacy. Four groups of 20 adults solved syllogisms that varied in imagery value and in tendency to access knowledge schemata (assessed by ratings of the relatedness of antecedent and consequent clauses of premises). When problems both were high in imagery value and had related clauses, performance was significantly better on indeterminate syllogisms. Access to schemata may permit elaborative processing and the generation of counterexamples to invalid inferences; imagery may support representation of problems and generation of elaborative information in memory.     

Illusions in modal reasoning

According to the mental model theory, models represent what is true, but not what is false. One unexpected consequence is that certain inferences should have compelling, but invalid, conclusions. Three experiments corroborated the occurrence of such illusions in reasoning about possibilities. When problems had the heading "Only one of the premises is true," the participants considered the truth of each premise in turn, but neglected the fact that when one premise is true, the others are false. When two-premise problems had the heading "One of the premises is true and one is false," the participants still neglected the falsity of one of the premises. As predicted, however, the illusions were reduced when reasoners were told to check their conclusions against the constraint that only one of the premises was true. We discuss alternative explanations for illusory inferences and their implications for current theories of reasoning.     

The effects of belief on the spontaneous production of syllogistic conclusions

Two experiments examined the effects of subjects' beliefs on syllogistic inference. The first experiment showed that beliefs biased the spontaneous conclusions that subjects drew for themselves. These effects were more marked for indeterminate premises (which yield no non-trivial valid conclusions) than for determinate premises (which yield valid conclusions). There was also an effect of the nature of the beliefs: conclusions that were false by definition had a bigger effect on deductions than those that were false as a matter of fact. The second experiment replicated the finding for determinate syllogisms, using problems in moods in which the status of the valid conclusion could not be altered by conversion of the premises. Beliefs accordingly appear to affect the process of reasoning rather than the interpretation of premises.     

Belief-based and analytic processing in transitive inference depends on premise integration difficulty

Three experiments investigated belief-based versus analytic processing in transitive inference. Belief-based and analytic processing were inferred from conclusion acceptance rates for problems with conclusions that were either valid or invalid and believable or unbelievable. Premise integration difficulty was manipulated by varying premise integration time (Experiment 1), premise presentation order (Experiment 2), and the markedness of the relational terms in the premises (Experiment 3). In all the conditions, reasoning accuracy and rated confidence were lower on conflict problems, where belief-based and analytic processes yielded different responses. Participants relied more on analytic processing and less on belief-based processing in conditions in which premise integration was easier. Fluid intelligence and premise integration ability predicted analytical reasoning on conflict problems after reasoning on the no-conflict problems was controlled for. The findings were related to three dual-process models of belief bias. They provide the first evidence of belief bias in transitive inference.