David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 6 (1):1 – 26 (2000)
Three experiments are reported in which the relationships between task format, item type, and strategy usage were investigated for a two-dimensional relational inference task. Contrary to past findings with linear syllogisms, it was found that parallel presentation (presenting problem statements simultaneously) did not result in any increased use of deduction rule processes compared with serial presentation (presenting problem statements individually). Instead, the results suggested that mental models were used by the majority of subjects, and that multiple models were more likely to be constructed with parallel presentation. It is proposed that, in general, multiple model construction will be more frequent for deduction tasks where the cognitive load is relatively low. Hence, contrary to suggestions by Polk and Newell (1995), reasoning in this way appears to be prevalent and highly robust - where supported by task format - even where the use of this strategy is disadvantageous.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Adrian P. Banks (2013). The Influence of Activation Level on Belief Bias in Relational Reasoning. Cognitive Science 37 (3):544-577.
Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst & Walter Schaeken (2005). The Wording of Conclusions in Relational Reasoning. Cognition 97 (1):1-22.
Similar books and articles
Markus Knauff & Christoph Schlieder (2004). Spatial Inference: No Difference Between Mental Images and Mental Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):589-590.
Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst (2002). Mental Model Theory Versus the Inference Rule Approach in Relational Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (3):193 – 203.
Daniel C. Krawczyk, Keith J. Holyoak & John E. Hummel (2004). Structural Constraints and Object Similarity in Analogical Mapping and Inference. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (1):85 – 104.
Damian P. Birney & Graeme S. Halford (2002). Cognitive Complexity of Suppositional Reasoning: An Application of the Relational Complexity Metric to the Knight-Knave Task. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):109 – 134.
Ryan D. Tweney & Michael E. Doherty (1983). Rationality and the Psychology of Inference. Synthese 57 (November):129-138.
Margaret Chalmers & Brendan McGonigle (1998). On the Psychological Reality of Parallel Relational Architectures: Whose Knowledge System is It Anyway? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):833-834.
David K. Hardman (1998). Discussion de-Focusing on the Wason Selection Task: Mental Models or Mental Inference Rules? A Commentary on Green and Larking (1995). Thinking and Reasoning 4 (1):83 – 94.
Lyn D. English (1998). Children's Reasoning in Solving Relational Problems of Deduction. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (3):249 – 281.
Vicky Dierckx & Andr (2003). Is Model Construction Open to Strategic Decisions? An Exploration in the Field of Linear Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (2):97 – 131.
Indre V. Viskontas, Keith J. Holyoak & Barbara J. Knowlton (2005). Relational Integration in Older Adults. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):390 – 410.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #304,116 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #127,260 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?