Individual differences and the belief bias effect: Mental models, logical necessity, and abstract reasoning
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):1 – 28 (1999)
This study investigated individual differences in the belief bias effect, which is the tendency to accept conclusions because they are believable rather than because they are logically valid. It was observed that the extent of an individual's belief bias effect was unrelated to a number of measures of reasoning competence. Instead, as predicted by mental models theory, it was related to a person's ability to generate alternative representations of premises: the more alternatives a person generated, the less likely they were to show a belief bias effect. In contrast to belief effects, which were predicted by the number of alternatives generated, scores on logical reasoning tasks were predicted by an individual's understanding of the concept of logical necessity. These two mediating variables, ability to generate alternatives and understanding of logical necessity, were themselves predicted by similar variables, such as cognitive motivation and abstract reasoning ability. Our findings strongly support the mental models interpretation of the belief bias effect, and suggest that individual differences in this effect are associated with a specific ability to generate alternatives, rather than with a general logical competence.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
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.
Similar books and articles
John Divers & Daniel Elstein (2012). Manifesting Belief in Absolute Necessity. Philosophical Studies 158 (1):109-130.
Isabelle Vadeboncoeur & Henry Markovits (1999). The Effect of Instructions and Information Retrieval on Accepting the Premises in a Conditional Reasoning Task. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (2):97 – 113.
Stephane Quinn & Henry Markovits (2002). Conditional Reasoning with Causal Premises: Evidence for a Retrieval Model. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (3):179 – 191.
Alison Bacon, Simon Handley & Stephen Newstead (2003). Individual Differences in Strategies for Syllogistic Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (2):133 – 168.
Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2007). Natural Myside Bias is Independent of Cognitive Ability. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (3):225 – 247.
Linden J. Ball & Edward J. N. Stupple (2008). Belief-Logic Conflict Resolution in Syllogistic Reasoning: Inspection-Time Evidence for a Parallel-Process Model. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):168-181.
Edward J. N. Stupple & Linden J. Ball (2008). Belief-Logic Conflict Resolution in Syllogistic Reasoning: Inspection-Time Evidence for a Parallel-Process Model. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):168 – 181.
Jonathan St B. T. Evans (1998). Matching Bias in Conditional Reasoning: Do We Understand It After 25 Years? Thinking and Reasoning 4 (1):45 – 110.
Dr Simon J. Handley, A. Capon, M. Beveridge, I. Dennis & J. St BT Evans (2004). Working Memory, Inhibitory Control and the Development of Children's Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):175 – 195.
Jonathan St B. T. Evans & Jodie Curtis-Holmes (2005). Rapid Responding Increases Belief Bias: Evidence for the Dual-Process Theory of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):382 – 389.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #95,262 of 1,089,048 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,722 of 1,089,048 )
How can I increase my downloads?