Mental representation of logical connectives

Logical connectives, such as “AND”, “OR”, “IF . . . THEN”, and “IF AND ONLY IF” are ubiquitous in both language and cognition; however, reasoning with logical connectives is error-prone. We argue that some of these errors may stem from people's tendency to minimize the number of possibilities compatible with logical connectives and to construct a “minimalist” one-possibility representation. As a result, connectives denoting a single possibility (e.g., conjunctions) are likely to be represented correctly, whereas connectives denoting multiple possibilities (e.g., disjunctions or conditionals) are likely to be erroneously represented as conjunctions. These predictions were tested and confirmed in three experiments using different paradigms. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with a multiple-choice task and asked to select all and only those possibilities that would indicate that compound verbal propositions were true versus false. In Experiment 2, a somewhat similar task was used, except that participants were asked later to perform a cued recall of verbal propositions. Finally, Experiment 3 used an old/new recognition paradigm to examine participants' ability to accurately recognize different logical connectives. The results of the three experiments are discussed in relation to theories of representation of possibilities and theories of reasoning.     

THE USE OF POWER AND INFLUENCE IN A GENDERED WORLD

A review is presented of empirical research on the effects of gender and power on the use of influence strategies in interpersonal relationships. Several variables are considered, including gender, power, status, relationship of agent to target, and the goal of the influence attempt. Although gender appears to account for some of the findings, power and status are more critical variables in choice of power strategies. Because gender is inextricably linked to power and status, the relationship of gender to influence strategy usage can only be understood in terms of its relationship to power and status.     

Rawlsian Civic Education: Political not Minimal

abstract In Political Liberalism and later work John Rawls has recast his theory of justice as fairness in political terms. In order to illustrate the advantages of a liberal political approach to justice over liberal non‐political ones, Rawls discusses what kind of education might be required for future citizens of pluralistic and democratic societies. He advocates a rather minimal conception of civic education that he claims to derive from political liberalism. One group of authors has sided with Rawls’ political perspective and educational proposal, holding that a political approach and educational requirements that are not too demanding would have the advantage of being acceptable to a wide range of citizens with different religious, moral and philosophical perspectives. A second group of authors have criticized Rawls’ educational recommendations, holding that the production of a just society composed of reasonable citizens requires a more demanding civic education and, hence, that the political approach is not viable. The present paper argues that both groups are only partially right, and that there is a third way to understand civic education in Rawlsian terms, a way that is political but not minimal.     

ENGINEERING CAREERS: WOMEN IN A MALE-DOMINATED FIELD

A national survey was conducted to compare the background and career characteristics of men and women engineers differing in the number of years since they completed their BS degrees (0–5, 6–10, 11–15, and 16–20 years). The parents of women engineers were more likely to have college degrees and to be employed in professional positions than were the parents of men engineers. Women engineers were less likely to be married and were more likely to be childless than were the men. Both men and women were influenced by courses and work–related factors in their decisions to pursue engineering, but men made their career decisions sooner than women. Although men and women reported comparable levels of technical responsibility in their present jobs, gender differences favoring men were found for supervisory responsibility and salary among those with more than five years of experience, with the gap between men and women increasing with experience. Men with 16–20 years of experience and all four degree cohorts of women endorsed the opinion that there are better opportunities for men than women in engineering.