The role of training, alternative models, and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 15 (1):69 – 100 (2009)
Prior research shows that reasoners' confidence is poorly calibrated (Shynkaruk & Thompson, 2006). The goal of the current experiment was to increase calibration in syllogistic reasoning by training reasoners on (a) the concept of logical necessity and (b) the idea that more than one representation of the premises may be possible. Training improved accuracy and was also effective in remedying some systematic misunderstandings about the task: those in the training condition were better at estimating their overall performance than those who were untrained. However, training was less successful in helping reasoners to discriminate which items are most likely to cause them difficulties. In addition we explored other variables that may affect confidence and accuracy, such as the number of models required to represent the problem and whether or not the presented conclusion was necessitated by the premises, possible given the premises, or impossible given the premises. These variables had systematically different relationships to confidence and accuracy. Thus, we propose that confidence in reasoning judgements is analogous to confidence in memory retrievals, in that they are inferentially derived from cues that are not diagnostic in terms of accuracy.
|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
Valerie Thompson & Kinga Morsanyi (2012). Analytic Thinking: Do You Feel Like It? Mind and Society 11 (1):93-105.
Edward Jn Stupple & Linden J. Ball (2011). Normative Benchmarks Are Useful for Studying Individual Differences in Reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):270-271.
Similar books and articles
Simon Venn, Jonathan Evans & Aidan Feeney (2008). Rarity, Pseudodiagnosticity and Bayesian Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (3):209-230.
Barlow Wright (2006). The Transitive Task Revisited: Investigating Key Hallmarks From the Start to the End of Training. Thinking and Reasoning 12 (1):91 – 123.
Alison Bacon, Simon Handley & Stephen Newstead (2003). Individual Differences in Strategies for Syllogistic Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (2):133 – 168.
Craig Kunimoto, Jeff G. Miller & Harold Pashler (2001). Confidence and Accuracy of Near-Threshold Discrimination Responses. Consciousness and Cognition 10 (3):294-340.
Guy Politzer & Hugo Mercier (2008). Solving Categorical Syllogisms with Singular Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):434 – 454.
Donna Torrens (1999). Individual Differences and the Belief Bias Effect: Mental Models, Logical Necessity, and Abstract Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):1 – 28.
Hugo Mercier & Guy Politzer (2011). Solving Categorical Syllogisms with Singular Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):434-454.
Sylvia Burrow (2009). Bodily Limits to Autonomy : Emotion, Attitude, and Self-Defense. In Sue Campbell, Letitia Meynell & Susan Sherwin (eds.), Embodiment and Agency. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Aidan Feeney, Jonathan Evans & Simon Venn (2008). Rarity, Pseudodiagnosticity and Bayesian Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (3):209 – 230.
Added to index2009-02-04
Total downloads18 ( #103,167 of 1,413,330 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #154,079 of 1,413,330 )
How can I increase my downloads?