9 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Walter Schroyens [7]Walter J. Schroyens [2]
  1. Walter Schroyens (2010). Logic and/in Psychology: The Paradoxes of Material Implication and Psychologism in the Cognitive Science of Human Reasoning. In Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater (eds.), Cognition and Conditionals: Probability and Logic in Human Thinking. Oup Oxford.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Walter Schroyens (2009). On is an Ought: Levels of Analysis and the Descriptive Versus Normative Analysis of Human Reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):101-102.
    Algorithmic-level specifications carry part of the explanatory burden in most psychological theories. It is, thus, inappropriate to limit a comparison and evaluation of theories to the computational level. A rational analysis considers people's goal-directed and environmentally adaptive rationality; it is not normative. Adaptive rationality is by definition non-absolute; hence, neither deductive logic nor Bayesian probability theory has absolute normative status.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Géry D'Ydewalle, Walter Schaeken, Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schroyens & Aline Sevenants (2008). Truth Table Tasks: The Relevance of Irrelevant. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):409-433.
    Two types of truth table tasks are used investigating mental representations of conditionals: a possibilities-based and a truth-based one. In possibilities tasks, participants indicate whether a situation is possible or impossible according to the conditional rule. In truth tasks participants evaluate whether a situation makes the rule true or false, or is irrelevant with respect to the truth of the rule. Comparing the two-option version of the possibilities task with the truth task in Experiment 1, the possibilities task yields logical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Aline Sevenants, Walter Schroyens, Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schaeken & G. (2008). Truth Table Tasks: The Relevance of Irrelevant. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):409-433.
    Two types of truth table tasks are used investigating mental representations of conditionals: a possibilities-based and a truth-based one. In possibilities tasks, participants indicate whether a situation is possible or impossible according to the conditional rule. In truth tasks participants evaluate whether a situation makes the rule true or false, or is irrelevant with respect to the truth of the rule. Comparing the two-option version of the possibilities task with the truth task in Experiment 1, the possibilities task yields logical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Walter J. Schroyens, Walter Schaeken & Géry D'Ydewalle (2001). The Processing of Negations in Conditional Reasoning: A Meta-Analytic Case Study in Mental Model and/or Mental Logic Theory. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (2):121-172.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Walter J. Schroyens, Walter Schaeken & G. (2001). The Processing of Negations in Conditional Reasoning: A Meta-Analytic Case Study in Mental Model and/or Mental Logic Theory. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (2):121 – 172.
    We present a meta-analytic review on the processing of negations in conditional reasoning about affirmation problems (Modus Ponens: "MP", Affirmation of the Consequent "AC") and denial problems (Denial of the Antecedent "DA", and Modus Tollens "MT"). Findings correct previous generalisations about the phenomena. First, the effects of negation in the part of the conditional about which an inference is made, are not constrained to denial problems. These inferential-negation effects are also observed on AC. Second, there generally are reliable effects of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Niki Verschueren, Walter Schroyens, Walter Schaeken & Géry D’Ydewalle (2001). Why Do Participants Draw Non-Valid Inferences in Conditional Reasoning? Cognition 16:238-246.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schaeken, Walter Schroyens & Gery D'Ydewalle (2000). Strategies During Complex Conditional Inferences. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (2):125 – 160.
    In certain contexts reasoners reject instances of the valid Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens inference form in conditional arguments. Byrne (1989) observed this suppression effect when a conditional premise is accompanied by a conditional containing an additional requirement. In an earlier study, Rumain, Connell, and Braine (1983) observed suppression of the invalid inferences "the denial of the antecedent" and "the affirmation of the consequent" when a conditional premise is accompanied by a conditional containing an alternative requirement. Here we present three (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Walter Schroyens, Niki Verschueren, Walter Schaeken & Gery D'Ydewalle (2000). Conditional Reasoning with Negations: Implicit and Explicit Affirmation or Denial and the Role of Contrast Classes. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (3):221 – 251.
    We report two studies on the effect of implicitly versus explicitly conveying affirmation and denial problems about conditionals. Recently Evans and Handley (1999) and Schroyens et al. (1999b, 2000b) showed that implicit referencing elicits matching bias: Fewer determinate inferences are made, when the categorical premise (e.g., B) mismatches the conditional's referred clause (e.g., A). Also, the effect of implicit affirmation (B affirms not-A) is larger than the effect of implicit denial (B denies A). Schroyens et al. hypothesised that this interaction (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation