56 found
Order:
  1. P. N. Johnson-Laird & Ruth M. J. Byrne (1991). Deduction. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   205 citations  
  2.  34
    Keith Oatley & P. N. Johnson-Laird (1987). Towards a Cognitive Theory of Emotions. Cognition and Emotion 1 (1):29-50.
  3.  1
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Bruno G. Bara (1984). Syllogistic Inference. Cognition 16 (1):1-61.
  4.  2
    Jane Oakhill, P. N. Johnson-Laird & Alan Garnham (1989). Believability and Syllogistic Reasoning. Cognition 31 (2):117-140.
  5.  3
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Ruth M. J. Byrne (1990). Meta-Logical Problems: Knights, Knaves, and Rips. Cognition 36 (1):69-84.
  6.  7
    Ruth M. J. Byrne & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2009). ‘If’ and the Problems of Conditional Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (7):282-287.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  7.  1
    P. N. Johnson-Laird (1987). The Mental Representation of the Meaning of Words. Cognition 25 (1-2):189-211.
  8.  11
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Fabien Savary (1999). Illusory Inferences: A Novel Class of Erroneous Deductions. Cognition 71 (3):191-229.
  9.  9
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Keith Oatley (1992). Basic Emotions, Rationality, and Folk Theory. Cognition and Emotion 6 (3):201-223.
  10.  28
    Isabel Orenes & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2012). Logic, Models, and Paradoxical Inferences. Mind and Language 27 (4):357-377.
    People reject ‘paradoxical’ inferences, such as: Luisa didn't play music; therefore, if Luisa played soccer, then she didn't play music. For some theorists, they are invalid for everyday conditionals, but valid in logic. The theory of mental models implies that they are valid, but unacceptable because the conclusion refers to a possibility inconsistent with the premise. Hence, individuals should accept them if the conclusions refer only to possibilities consistent with the premises: Luisa didn't play soccer; therefore, if Luisa played a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11.  4
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Keith Oatley (1989). The Language of Emotions: An Analysis of a Semantic Field. Cognition and Emotion 3 (2):81-123.
  12.  2
    Alan Garnham, Jane Oakhill & P. N. Johnson-Laird (1982). Referential Continuity and the Coherence of Discourse. Cognition 11 (1):29-46.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   26 citations  
  13.  25
    Sangeet Khemlani & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2013). The Processes of Inference. Argument and Computation 4 (1):4 - 20.
    (2013). The processes of inference. Argument & Computation: Vol. 4, Formal Models of Reasoning in Cognitive Psychology, pp. 4-20. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2012.674060.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14.  7
    Geoffrey P. Goodwin & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2010). Conceptual Illusions. Cognition 114 (2):253-265.
  15.  3
    Walter Schaeken, P. N. Johnson-Laird & Gery D'Ydewalle (1996). Mental Models and Temporal Reasoning. Cognition 60 (3):205-234.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  16.  30
    N. Y. Louis Lee, Geoffrey P. Goodwin & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2008). The Psychological Puzzle of Sudoku. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):342 – 364.
    Sudoku puzzles, which are popular worldwide, require individuals to infer the missing digits in a 9 9 array according to the general rule that every digit from 1 to 9 must occur once in each row, in each column, and in each of the 3-by-3 boxes in the array. We present a theory of how individuals solve these puzzles. It postulates that they rely solely on pure deductions, and that they spontaneously acquire various deductive tactics, which differ in their difficulty (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  17. R. N. Aslin, P. Barrouillet, P. Bloom, S. A. Gelman, T. JaČrvinen, P. N. Johnson-Laird, C. L. Krumhansl, J. F. Leca, M. J. Spivey & K. Sullivan (2000). Adi-Japha, E., 1 Ahn, W.-K., B35 Amsterlaw, JA, B35 Arnold, JE, B13. Cognition 76:297.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  18.  10
    P. N. Johnson-Laird, Sangeet S. Khemlani & Geoffrey P. Goodwin (2015). Logic, Probability, and Human Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (4):201-214.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  4
    Niklas Kunze, Sangeet Khemlani, Max Lotstein & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2010). Illusions of Consistency in Quantified Assertions. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20. P. N. Johnson-Laird (2008). How We Reason: A View From Psychology. The Reasoner 2:4-5.
    Good reasoning can lead to success; bad reasoning can lead to catastrophe. Yet it's not obvious how we reason, and why we make mistakes. This book by one of the pioneers of the field, Philip Johnson-Laird, looks at the mental processes that underlie our reasoning. It provides the most accessible account yet of the science of reasoning.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21.  2
    Keith Oatley & P. N. Johnson-Laird (1990). Semantic Primitives for Emotions: A Reply to Ortony and Clore. Cognition and Emotion 4 (2):129-143.
  22.  23
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & A. Garnham (1980). Descriptions and Discourse Models. Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (3):371 - 393.
  23.  16
    Patricia Barres & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2003). On Imagining What is True (and What is False). Thinking and Reasoning 9 (1):1 – 42.
    How do people imagine the possibilities in which an assertion would be true and the possibilities in which it would be false? We argue that the mental representation of the meanings of connectives, such as "and", "or", and "if", specify how to construct the true possibilities for simple assertions containing just a single connective. It follows that the false possibilities are constructed by inference from the true possibilities. We report converging evidence supporting this account from four experiments in which the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  24.  18
    Keith Oatley & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2014). Cognitive Approaches to Emotions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18 (3):134-140.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. E. Barres (1994). When 'Or'means 'And': A Study in Mental Models. In Ashwin Ram & Kurt Eiselt (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum 475--478.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  26. M. R. Newsome & P. N. Johnson-Laird (1996). An Antidote to Illusory Inferences. In Garrison W. Cottrell (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum 820.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  27.  20
    Carlos Santamaria & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2000). An Antidote to Illusory Inferences. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):313 – 333.
    The mental model theory predicts that reasoners normally represent what is true, but not what is false. One consequence is that reasoners should make "illusory" inferences, which are compelling but invalid. Three experiments confirmed the existence of such illusions based on disjunctions of disjunctions. They also established a successful antidote to them: Reasoners are much less likely to succumb to illusions if the inferences concern disjunctions of physical objects (alternative newspaper advertisements) rather disjunctions of the truth values of assertions. The (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28.  32
    P. N. Johnson-Laird (2002). Peirce, Logic Diagrams, and the Elementary Operations of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (1):69 – 95.
    This paper describes Peirce's systems of logic diagrams, focusing on the so-called ''existential'' graphs, which are equivalent to the first-order predicate calculus. It analyses their implications for the nature of mental representations, particularly mental models with which they have many characteristics in common. The graphs are intended to be iconic, i.e., to have a structure analogous to the structure of what they represent. They have emergent logical consequences and a single graph can capture all the different ways in which a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29.  2
    Geoffrey P. Goodwin & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2008). Transitive and Pseudo-Transitive Inferences. Cognition 108 (2):320-352.
  30.  12
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Ruth M. J. Byrne (1999). Models Rule, OK? A Reply to Fetzer. Minds and Machines 9 (1):111-118.
  31.  1
    P. N. Johnson-Laird, Sangeet S. Khemlani & Geoffrey P. Goodwin (2015). Response to Baratgin Et Al.: Mental Models Integrate Probability and Deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (10):548-549.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  1
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Bruno G. Bara (1984). Logical Expertise as a Cause of Error: A Reply to Boolos. Cognition 17 (2):183-184.
  33. P. N. Johnson-Laird (2006). Mental Models, Sentential Reasoning, and Illusory Inferences. In Carsten Held, Markus Knauff & Gottfried Vosgerau (eds.), Mental Models and the Mind: Current Developments in Cognitive Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind. Elsevier
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  1
    P. N. Johnson-laird & Ruth M. J. Byrne (1995). A Model Point of View. Thinking and Reasoning 1 (4):339 – 350.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  35. V. Girotto, D. Osherson, R. de OverHastie, N. Pennington, S. Iwasaki, P. N. Johnson-Laird, J. Klayman, P. Legrenzi & E. Shafir (1993). Evans, J. St. BT, 165. Cognition 49:299.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  36.  2
    B. C. Bara, P. N. Johnson-Laird & V. Lombarde (1994). Mental Models in Prepositional Reasoning. In Ashwin Ram & Kurt Eiselt (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum 16--15.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  3
    Sangeet Khemlani & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2010). Explanations Make Inconsistencies Harder to Detect. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. P. N. Johnson-Laird & Keith Oatley (1988). Are There Only Two Primitive Emotions? A Reply to Frijda. Cognition and Emotion 2 (2):89-93.
  39. N. Braisby, G. N. Carlson, L. Cestnick, C. G. Chambers, M. Coltheart, J. Davidoff, A. Fernald, S. P. Johnson, P. N. Johnson-Laird & T. Jolliffe (1999). Baron-Cohen, S., 149 Bloom, P., B1. Cognition 71:291.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40.  14
    P. N. Johnson-Laird, Geoffrey P. Goodwin & N. Y. Louis Lee (2011). The Psychological Puzzle of Sudoku. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):342-364.
    Sudoku puzzles, which are popular worldwide, require individuals to infer the missing digits in a 9 9 array according to the general rule that every digit from 1 to 9 must occur once in each row, in each column, and in each of the 3-by-3 boxes in the array. We present a theory of how individuals solve these puzzles. It postulates that they rely solely on pure deductions, and that they spontaneously acquire various deductive tactics, which differ in their difficulty (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  12
    Mary R. Newsome & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2006). How Falsity Dispels Fallacies. Thinking and Reasoning 12 (2):214 – 234.
    From certain sorts of premise, individuals reliably infer invalid conclusions. Two Experiments investigated a possible cause for these illusory inference: Reasoners fail to think about what is false. In Experiment 1, 24 undergraduates drew illusory and control inferences from premises based on exclusive disjunctions (“or else”). In one block, participants were instructed to falsify the premises of each illusory and control inference before making the inference. In the other block, participants did not receive these instructions. There were more correct answers (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  3
    P. N. Johnson-Laird (2000). Illusions and Models: A Reply to Barrouillet and Lecas. Cognition 76 (2):175-178.
  43.  2
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Ruth M. J. Byrne (1996). Mental Models and Syllogisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):543-546.
    We resolve the two problems that Hardman raises. The first problem arises from a misunderstanding: the crucial distinction is between one-model and multiple-model problems. The second problem illuminates a deeper principle: conclusions depend on the procedures for interpreting models. We describe an algorithm that obviates the problem and empirical work that reveals a new view of syllogistic reasoning.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  2
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Ruth M. J. Byrne (1994). Models, Necessity, and the Search for Counterexamples. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4):775.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  2
    P. N. Johnson-Laird (1983). Which Comes First: Logic or Rationality? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (2):252.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  8
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & Ruth M. J. Byrne (2000). Mental Models and Pragmatics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):284-285.
    Van der Henst argues that the theory of mental models lacks a pragmatic component. He fills the gap with the notion that reasoners draw the most relevant conclusions. We agree, but argue that theories need an element of “nondeterminism.” It is often impossible to predict either what will be most relevant or which particular conclusion an individual will draw.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  7
    P. N. Johnson-Laird & A. Garnham (1980). Erratum. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (1):157-157.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  1
    P. N. Johnson-Laird (1978). The Correspondence and Coherence Theories of Cognitive Truth. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (1):108.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  1
    P. N. Johnson-Laird (1981). Cognition, Computers, and Mental Models. Cognition 10 (1-3):139-143.
  50. P. N. Johnson-Laird (2003). Illusions of Understanding. In A. J. Sanford & P. N. Johnson-Laird (eds.), The Nature and Limits of Human Understanding. T & T Clark 3--25.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 56