David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 11 (3):239 – 278 (2005)
There are two accounts describing causal conditional reasoning: the probabilistic and the mental models account. According to the probabilistic account, the tendency to accept a conclusion is related to the probability by which cause and effect covary. According to the mental models account, the tendency to accept a conclusion relates to the availability of counterexamples. These two accounts are brought together in a dual-process theory: It is argued that the probabilistic reasoning process can be considered as a heuristic process whereas the mental models account can be seen as its analytic counterpart. Experiment 1 showed that the two processes differ on a temporal dimension: The variation in fast responses was best predicted by the variation in likelihood information, while the variation in slow responses was best predicted by variation in counterexample information. Experiments 2 and 3 validate the override principle: The likelihood conclusion can be overwritten when specific counterexamples are retrieved in time. In Experiment 2 both accounts were compared based on their difference in input. In Experiment 3 we used a verbal protocol analysis to validate the dual-process idea at the output level. The data of the three experiments provide converging support for framing the two reasoning accounts in a dual-process theory.
|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
Isabel Orenes & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2012). Logic, Models, and Paradoxical Inferences. Mind and Language 27 (4):357-377.
Ruth M. J. Byrne & Philip N. Johnson-Laird (2010). Models Redux: Response to Evans and Over. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (1):6.
Similar books and articles
Ralph Wedgwood (2006). The Normative Force of Reasoning. Noûs 40 (4):660–686.
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.
Wim de Neys, Walter Schaeken & G. (2005). Working Memory and Counterexample Retrieval for Causal Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 11 (2):123 – 150.
Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2007). On the Resolution of Conflict in Dual Process Theories of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):321 – 339.
Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater (2012). Dual Processes, Probabilities, and Cognitive Architecture. Mind and Society 11 (1):15-26.
Pierre Barrouillet & Jean-Francois Lecas (1999). Mental Models in Conditional Reasoning and Working Memory. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (4):289 – 302.
Henry Markovits (2000). A Mental Model Analysis of Young Children's Conditional Reasoning with Meaningful Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):335 – 347.
Eef Ameel, Niki Verschueren & Walter Schaeken (2007). The Relevance of Selecting What's Relevant: A Dual Process Approach to Transitive Reasoning with Spatial Relations. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (2):164 – 187.
Henrik Singmann & Karl Christoph Klauer (2011). Deductive and Inductive Conditional Inferences: Two Modes of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 17 (3):247 - 281.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #179,168 of 1,102,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #192,049 of 1,102,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?