Presentation format and syllogistic reasoning

  1. Orlando Espino Morales 1
  2. Carlos Santamaría Moreno 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

Journal:
Psicológica: Revista de metodología y psicología experimental

ISSN: 1576-8597

Year of publication: 2013

Volume: 34

Issue: 2

Pages: 313-326

Type: Article

Abstract

Figural effect is a response bias that depends on the arrangement of the terms in syllogisms. The usual pattern in construction tasks is that participants tend to give A-C responses when the syllogisms are in figure 4(A-B/B-C), while the majority of their conclusions are in the opposite direction (C-A) for syllogisms in figure 1 (B-A/C-B). We report on one experiment that examines the role of the presentation format of premises (two-line presentation vs. one-line presentation) in categorical syllogisms. The experiment showed that when premises were presented in one-line presentation format, participants generated more A-C than C-A conclusions in all syllogistic figures. However, when premises were presented in twoline presentation format, participants generated more A-C conclusions in figure 4 and more C-A conclusions in figure 1, while there were no reliable differences for either figure 2 (A-B/C-B) or figure 3(B-A/B-C). We discuss the implications of these results for different theories of reasoning.

Bibliographic References

  • Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon Press.
  • Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (1999). The probability heuristics model of syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 191-258.
  • Dickstein, L. S. (1978). The effect of figure on syllogistic reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 6, 76-83.
  • Espino, O., Santamaría, C. & García-Madruga, J.A. (2000a). Activation of end-terms in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 6, 67-89.
  • Espino, O., Santamaría, C. & García-Madruga, J.A. (2000b). Figure and difficulty in syllogistic reasoning. Current Psychology of Cognition, 19, 417-428.
  • Espino, O., Santamaría, C., Meseguer, E., & Carreiras, M. (2005). Early and late processes in syllogistic reasoning: evidence from eye-movements. Cognition, 98, B1-B9.
  • Evans, St. B. T (2003). In two minds: Dual process accounts of reasoning. Trend in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454-459,
  • Ford, M. (1995). Two modes of mental representation and problem solution in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 54, 1-71.
  • Fraser, L. T. (1968). Associative factors in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 407-412.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Press.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). How we reason. Oxford, University Press;
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Bara, B. G. (1984). Syllogistic Inference. Cognition, 16, 1-62.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Steedman, M. (1978). The psychology of the syllogisms. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 64-98.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin books, England.
  • Khemlani, S., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2012). Theories of the syllogism: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 427-457.
  • Oberauer, K., Hörnig, R., Weidenfeld, A. & Wilhelm, O. (2005). Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning: II. Premise integration and conclusion evaluation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A (7), 1225-1247.
  • Oberauer, K., & Wilhelm, O. (2000). Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning: I. The comprehension of a single relational premises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1702-1712.
  • Pezzoli, J. F. & Fraser, L. T. (1968). Mediated facilitation of syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 228-232.
  • Polk, T. A., & Newell, A. (1995). Deduction as verbal reasoning. Psychological Review, 102, 533-566.
  • Roberge, J.J. (1970). A reexamination of the interpretations of error in formal syllogistic reasoning. Psychonomic Science, 10, 331-333.
  • Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Lawrence Elrbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.,
  • Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97-140.
  • Stenning, K. & Yule, P. (1997). Image and language in human reasoning: a syllogistic illustration. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 109-159.
  • Wetherick, N., & Gilhooly, K. (1990). Syllogistic reasoning: effects of premise order. In K.Gilhooly, M. T. G. Keane, R. Logie, & G. Erdos, Lines of thought: Reflections on the psychology of thinking, Vol. 1, London: Wiley.