Figural Effects in a Syllogistic Evaluation Paradigm

Directional effect in double conditionals with a construction task: The semantic hypothesis

The goal of this paper is to test the main predictions of the semantic hypothesis about the directional effect in double conditionals (such as, 'A only if B/only if C, B') with a construction task. The semantic hypothesis claims that directional effect can be explained by the inherent directionality of the relation between the relatum and the target object of the premises. According to this hypothesis, a directional effect should occur if only one of the end-terms of the premises takes the role of relatum: a) if the end-term that plays the role of relatum is in the first premise, a forward directional effect is predicted (from A to C); and b) if the end-term that plays the role of relatum is in the second premise, a backward directional effect is predicted (from C to A). On the other hand, it claims that there should be no directional effect when both end-terms take the role of relatum or when neither of the end-terms plays the role of relatum. Three experiments confirmed the main predictions of the semantic hypothesis in a construction task.

Probabilistic representation in syllogistic reasoning: A theory to integrate mental models and heuristics

This paper presents a new theory of syllogistic reasoning. The proposed model assumes there are probabilistic representations of given signature situations. Instead of conducting an exhaustive search, the model constructs an individual-based "logical" mental representation that expresses the most probable state of affairs, and derives a necessary conclusion that is not inconsistent with the model using heuristics based on informativeness. The model is a unification of previous influential models. Its descriptive validity has been evaluated against existing empirical data and two new experiments, and by qualitative analyses based on previous empirical findings, all of which supported the theory. The model's behavior is also consistent with findings in other areas, including working memory capacity. The results indicate that people assume the probabilities of all target events mentioned in a syllogism to be almost equal, which suggests links between syllogistic reasoning and other areas of cognition.

The intersection between Descriptivism and Meliorism in reasoning research: further proposals in support of 'soft normativism'

The rationality paradox centers on the observation that people are highly intelligent, yet show evidence of errors and biases in their thinking when measured against normative standards. Elqayam and Evans’ (2011) reject normative standards in the psychological study of thinking, reasoning and deciding in favor of a ‘value-free’ descriptive approach to studying high-level cognition. In reviewing Elqayam and Evans’ (2011) position, we defend an alternative to descriptivism in the form of ‘soft normativism,’ which allows for normative evaluations alongside the pursuit of descriptive research goals. We propose that normative theories have considerable value provided that researchers: (1) are alert to the philosophical quagmire of strong relativism; (2) are mindful of the biases that can arise from utilizing normative benchmarks; and (3) engage in a focused analysis of the processing approach adopted by individual reasoners. We address the controversial ‘is–ought’ inference in this context and appeal to a ‘bridging solution’ to this contested inference that is based on the concept of ‘informal reflective equilibrium.’ Furthermore, we draw on Elqayam and Evans’ (2011) recognition of a role for normative benchmarks in research programs that are devised to enhance reasoning performance and we argue that such Meliorist research programs have a valuable reciprocal relationship with descriptivist accounts of reasoning. In sum, we believe that descriptions of reasoning processes are fundamentally enriched by evaluations of reasoning quality, and argue that if such standards are discarded altogether then our explanations and descriptions of reasoning processes are severely undermined.

Short article: Negations in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a heuristic–analytic conflict

An experiment utilizing response time measures was conducted to test dominant processing strategies in syllogistic reasoning with the expanded quantifier set proposed by Roberts (2005). Through adding negations to existing quantifiers it is possible to change problem surface features without altering logical validity. Biases based on surface features such as atmosphere, matching, and the probability heuristics model (PHM; Chater & Oaksford, 1999; Wetherick & Gilhooly, 1995) would not be expected to show variance in response latencies, but participant responses should be highly sensitive to changes in the surface features of the quantifiers. In contrast, according to analytic accounts such as mental models theory and mental logic (e.g., Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991; Rips, 1994) participants should exhibit increased response times for negated premises, but not be overly impacted upon by the surface features of the conclusion. Data indicated that the dominant response strategy was based on a matching heuristic, but also provided evidence of a resource-demanding analytic procedure for dealing with double negatives. The authors propose that dual-process theories offer a stronger account of these data whereby participants employ competing heuristic and analytic strategies and fall back on a heuristic response when analytic processing fails.