| Abstract: | Transitive inference problems were presented in a modified conclusion evaluation procedure. Conclusions were believable or unbelievable and valid, invalid or indeterminate. The 67 undergraduate students read the premises, evaluated the conclusions (accept, reject, cannot tell), then provided confidence ratings. Fluid intelligence was also assessed. Acceptance of valid conclusions, rejection of invalid conclusions and cannot tell responses to indeterminate conclusions of non-integrable problems indicated use of analytic processing. Believability effects indicated the use of heuristic processing. Fluid intelligence and premise integration ability (non-integrable problems) predicted greater use of analytic processing on valid and invalid problems. Premise integration ability was associated with reduced belief bias on invalid problems. Premise integration ability appears to influence the extent of heuristic versus analytic processing. Confidence was sensitive to the presence of belief–logic conflict. Conflict detection scores reflecting this sensitivity were not associated with analytic processing suggesting that conflict detection occurs automatically and reflects an intuitive logic. |
