David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 14 (3):244 – 280 (2008)
Transitive inference is claimed to be “deductive”. Yet every group/species ever reported apparently uses it. We asked 58 adults to solve five-term transitive tasks, requiring neither training nor premise learning. A computer-based procedure ensured all premises were continually visible. Response accuracy and RT (non-discriminative nRT ) were measured as is typically done. We also measured RT confined to correct responses ( cRT ). Overall, very few typical transitive phenomena emerged. The symbolic distance effect never extended to premise recall and was not at all evident for nRT ; suggesting the use of non-deductive end-anchor strategies. For overall performance, and particularly the critical B ? D inference, our findings indicate that deductive transitive inference is far more intellectually challenging than previously thought. Contrasts of our present findings against previous findings suggest at least two distinct transitive inference modes, with most research and most computational models to date targeting an associative mode rather than their desired deductive mode. This conclusion fits well with the growing number of theories embracing a “dual process” conception of reasoning. Finally, our differing findings for nRT versus cRT suggest that researchers should give closer consideration to matching the RT measure they use to the particular conception of transitive inference they pre-held
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
P. D. Magnus (2008). Demonstrative Induction and the Skeleton of Inference. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):303 – 315.
Anthony J. Greene, Barbara Spellman, Jeffery A. Dusek, Howard B. Eichenbaum & William B. Levy (2001). Relational Learning with and Without Awareness: Transitive Inference Using Nonverbal Stimuli in Humans. Memory and Cognition 29 (6):893-902.
Graeme S. Halford & Glenda Andrews (2004). The Development of Deductive Reasoning: How Important is Complexity? Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):123 – 145.
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.
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.
Donna Howells & Barlow C. Wright (2008). Getting One Step Closer to Deduction: Introducing an Alternative Paradigm for Transitive Inference. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (3):244-280.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #185,201 of 1,789,998 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #83,046 of 1,789,998 )
How can I increase my downloads?