Cognitive complexity of suppositional reasoning: An application of the relational complexity metric to the Knight-knave task
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):109 – 134 (2002)
An application of the Method of Analysis of Relational Complexity (MARC) to suppositional reasoning in the knight-knave task is outlined. The task requires testing suppositions derived from statements made by individuals who either always tell the truth or always lie. Relational complexity (RC) is defined as the number of unique entities that need to be processed in parallel to arrive at a solution. A selection of five ternary and five quaternary items were presented to 53 psychology students using a pencil and paper format. A computer-administered version was presented to 50 students. As predicted, quaternary problems were associated with higher error rates and longer response times than ternary problems. The computer-administered form was more difficult than the pencil and paper version of the test. These differences are discussed in terms of RC theory and alternative processing accounts. Together, they indicate that the relational complexity metric is a useful and parsimonious way to quantify complexity of reasoning tasks.
|Keywords||380102 Learning, Memory, Cognition and Language C1|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (2010). Relational Knowledge: The Foundation of Higher Cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (11):497-505.
Glenda Andrews Graeme S. Halford, Nelson Cowan (2007). Separating Cognitive Capacity From Knowledge: A New Hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (6):236.
Similar books and articles
Danko Nikolic (1998). Chaotic Dimensionality of Hand Movements Define Processing Capacity by Relational Complexity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):842-843.
Richard A. Heath & Brett K. Hayes (1998). Why is Capacity Limited? Missing Dynamics and Developmental Controversies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):839-840.
Indre V. Viskontas, Keith J. Holyoak & Barbara J. Knowlton (2005). Relational Integration in Older Adults. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):390 – 410.
James A. Waltz, Barbara J. Knowlton & Keith J. Holyoak (1998). Relational Complexity, the Central Executive, and Prefrontal Cortex. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):846-847.
Donna Coch & Kurt W. Fischer (1998). Discontinuity and Variability in Relational Complexity: Cognitive and Brain Development. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):834-835.
Daniel B. Berch & Elizabeth J. Foley (1998). Processing Demands Associated with Relational Complexity: Testing Predictions with Dual-Task Methodologies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):832-833.
Usha Goswami (1998). Is Relational Complexity a Useful Metric for Cognitive Development? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):838-839.
Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (1998). Relational Complexity Metric is Effective When Assessments Are Based on Actual Cognitive Processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):848-860.
Juan Pascual-Leone (1998). To Appraise Developmental Difficulty or Mental Demand, Relational Complexity is Not Enough. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):843-844.
Douglas Frye & Philip David Zelazo (1998). Complexity: From Formal Analysis to Final Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):836-837.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #173,235 of 1,696,625 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,146 of 1,696,625 )
How can I increase my downloads?