Reasoning Flashcards
People may solve reasoning problems by using _____ rather than engaging actual reasoning processes
Simple heuristics (rules of thumb)
True or False?
People always solve reasoning problems by
engaging actual reasoning processes
False
People may solve reasoning problems by using simple heuristics (rules of thumb) rather than engaging actual reasoning processes
Why do people often make reasoning ‘errors’?
Because the use of language in formal logic differs from that of everyday life
True or False?
People often make “errors” because the use of language in formal logic differs from that of everyday life
True
Which framework provides an example of an algorithmic description of the
steps by which people reason?
The “Mental Models” framework
What is the ‘Mental Models” framework?
A framework which provides an example of an algorithmic description of the steps by which people reason
What are responses in reasoning tasks highly sensitive to?
List 2 things
- The framing of the task
- The participant’s background beliefs
The framing of the task and the participant’s background beliefs affects…?
Responses in reasoning tasks
What are the 2 types of reasoning?
- Inductive
- Deductive
What is inductive reasoning?
Reasoning that involves drawing general conclusions from particular instances
Reasoning that involves drawing general conclusions from particular instances
This is known as…?
Inductive reasoning
Sarah has fallen asleep in all Psychology lectures so far
Therefore, Sarah will always fall asleep in Psychology lectures
This is an example of…?
a.Deductive reasoning
b. Inductive reasoning
b. Inductive reasoning
Sarah always falls asleep in Psychology lectures
Sarah is in a Psychology lecture
Therefore, Sarah will fall asleep
This is an example of…?
a.Deductive reasoning
b. Inductive reasoning
a.Deductive reasoning
What is deductive reasoning?
Reasoning that involves drawing conclusions which follow necessarily from the premises
Reasoning that involves drawing conclusions which follow necessarily from the premises
This is known as…?
Deductive reasoning
What is the main problem about inductive reasoning?
The conclusions are not necessarily true
e.g. Sarah has fallen asleep in all Psychology lectures so far
Therefore, Sarah will always fall asleep in Psychology lectures
There is always the possibility that the next Psychology lecture will manage to hold your attention throughout.
The conclusions are not necessarily true
This applies to..?
a.Deductive reasoning
b. Inductive reasoning
b. Inductive reasoning
If we accept that the premises are true, and if the argument follows the rules of logic, then the conclusion has to be true, too
This applies to..?
a. Deductive reasoning
b. Inductive reasoning
a. Deductive reasoning
What are the 2 types of deductive reasoning?
- Propositional reasoning
- Syllogisms
- Propositional reasoning
- Syllogisms
These are the two types of ____ reasoning
a. Deductive reasoning
b. Inductive reasoning
a. Deductive reasoning
What are the 4 approaches to reasoning?
- Identifying simplifying strategies
- Interpretation of terms
- Process models
- Effects of framing and experience
What are syllogisms?
Comprised of two premises and a conclusion, and involve the quantifiers all, none, some, and some…not
Comprised of two premises and a conclusion, and involve the quantifiers all, none, some, and some…not
This is known as…?
Syllogisms
First premise: Relationship between A and B
Second premise: Relationship between B and C
Conclude something about: Relationship between A and C
This is an example of…?
Syllogisms
When presented with:
First premise: Relationship between A and B
Second premise: Relationship between B and C
What will we conclude, based on Syllogisms?
The relationship between A and C
ALL Psychologists (A) are Comedians (B)
ALL Comedians (B) are Tap-Dancers (C)
What can we conclude?
ALL Psychologists (A) are Tap-dancers (C)
This is an example of…?
Syllogisms
When presented with:
ALL Psychologists (A) are Comedians (B)
ALL Comedians (B) are Tap-Dancers (C)
What can we conclude?
What will we conclude, based on Syllogisms?
ALL Psychologists (A) are Tap-dancers (C)
When presented with:
ALL Psychologists (A) are Comedians (B)
ALL Comedians (B) are Tap-Dancers (C)
What can we conclude?
How many people predict ALL Psychologists (A) are Tap-dancers (C)?
88%
Such arguments in syllogisms may be valid or invalid
Validity is determined by …?
The structure of the argument
The relations between the premises and the conclusion
In syllogisms, what is determined by the structure of the argument/ the relations between the premises and the conclusion?
Validity or arguement
True or False?
A valid argument is one where, if one accepts the truth of the premises, then the conclusion is also true
True
ALL Psychologists (B) are Poets (A)
ALL Psychologists (B) are Acrobats (C)
What can we conclude?
SOME Poets (A) are Acrobats (C)
This is an example of…?
Syllogisms
When presented with:
ALL Psychologists (B) are Poets (A)
ALL Psychologists (B) are Acrobats (C)
What is the right conclusion?
SOME Poets (A) are Acrobats (C)
When presented with:
ALL Psychologists (B) are Poets (A)
ALL Psychologists (B) are Acrobats (C)
How many people concluded that SOME Poets (A) are Acrobats (C)?
8%
True or False?
Roberts and Sykes (2005) found that problems of the form: “all a are b; all b are c; what follows?” were correctly solved by 8% of participants (valid conclusion: “all a are c”).
However, given a problem of the form: “all b are a; all b are c; what follows?” 88% of participants correctly concluded that “some a are c” (or, equivalently, that “some c are a”).
False
Roberts and Sykes (2005) found that problems of the form: “all a are b; all b are c; what follows?” were correctly solved by 88% of participants (valid conclusion: “all a are c”).
However, given a problem of the form: “all b are a; all b are c; what follows?” only 8% of participants correctly concluded that “some a are c” (or, equivalently, that “some c are a”).
Who found that problems of the form: “all a are b; all b are c; what follows?” were correctly solved by 88% of participants and problems of the form: “all b are a; all b are c; what follows?” only 8% of participants correctly concluded that “some a are c”?
Roberts and Sykes (2005)
What does the atmosphere theory propose?
The mood of the premises influences judgments about what the mood of the conclusion should be
The mood of the premises influences judgments about what the mood of the conclusion should be
Which theory proposes this?
Atmosphere theory
What does “mood” mean in the atmosphere theory?
Whether the statement is affirmative or negative, and whether it is universal or particular
(E.g., “all…” is universal and affirmative, whereas “some are not…” is particular and negative).
Whether the statement is affirmative or negative, and whether it is universal or particular
(E.g., “all…” is universal and affirmative, whereas “some are not…” is particular and negative).
This is known as…?
“Mood”
How do we solve reasoning tasks using heuristics?
By referring to the “atmosphere” (quality and quantity) of premises shapes
conclusions
By referring to the “atmosphere” (quality and quantity) of premises shapes
conclusions
Which approach to solving reasoning tasks is this?
Heuristics (identifying simplifying strategies)
In heuristics, what does universal and affirmative mean?
All
In heuristics, what does particular and negative mean?
Some … Not
In heuristics, what does universal and negative mean?
No(t)
In heuristics, what does particular and affirmative mean?
Some
Some
a. particular and affirmative
b. particular and negative
c. universal and affirmative
d. universal and negative
a. particular and affirmative
All
a. particular and affirmative
b. particular and negative
c. universal and affirmative
d. universal and negative
c. universal and affirmative
Some…Not
a. particular and affirmative
b. particular and negative
c. universal and affirmative
d. universal and negative
b. particular and negative
No(t)
a. particular and affirmative
b. particular and negative
c. universal and affirmative
d. universal and negative
d. universal and negative
Describe Begg and Denny’s study on heuristics
Ps were given 64 reasoning problems comprising two premises and a choice of four conclusions.
e.g.
All a are b
All b are c
Choose one conclusion:
a. All c are a
b. Some c are a
c. No c are a
d. Some c are not a
There were 45 problems with “no valid conclusion”
In Begg & Denny’s (1969) study:
Ps were given 64 reasoning problems comprising two premises and a choice of four conclusions.
e.g.
All a are b
All b are c
Choose one conclusion:
a. All c are a
b. Some c are a
c. No c are a
d. Some c are not a
There were 45 problems with “no valid conclusion” so Ps who chose any of the four options constituted an error
What were the results when both premises were affirmative?
79% chose affirmative
In Begg & Denny’s (1969) study:
Ps were given 64 reasoning problems comprising two premises and a choice of four conclusions.
e.g.
All a are b
All b are c
Choose one conclusion:
a. All c are a
b. Some c are a
c. No c are a
d. Some c are not a
There were 45 problems with “no valid conclusion” so Ps who chose any of the four options constituted an error
What were the results when one premise was negative and one was affirmative?
73% chose negative
In Begg & Denny’s (1969) study:
Ps were given 64 reasoning problems comprising two premises and a choice of four conclusions.
e.g.
All a are b
All b are c
Choose one conclusion:
a. All c are a
b. Some c are a
c. No c are a
d. Some c are not a
There were 45 problems with “no valid conclusion” so Ps who chose any of the four options constituted an error
What were the results when both premises were universal?
77% chose universal
In Begg & Denny’s (1969) study:
Ps were given 64 reasoning problems comprising two premises and a choice of four conclusions.
e.g.
All a are b
All b are c
Choose one conclusion:
a. All c are a
b. Some c are a
c. No c are a
d. Some c are not a
There were 45 problems with “no valid conclusion” so Ps who chose any of the four options constituted an error
What were the results when one premise was particular?
90% chose particular
True or False?
The “atmosphere” (quality and quantity) of the premises does not shape beliefs about the validity of different possible conclusions
False
The “atmosphere” (quality and quantity) of the premises shapes beliefs about the validity of different possible conclusions
In Begg and Denny’s (1969) study, what % of the time do Ps correctly identify that there is no valid inference?
29 - 40% of the time
Focus on interpretation of the terms
Which approach to reasoning is this?
Comprehension
“Errors” in syllogistic reasoning partly reflect differences between …?
The use of language in formal logic and in everyday life
Differences between the use of language in formal logic and in everyday life affect…?
“Errors” in syllogistic reasoning
How do we reduce “error” rates in reasoning tasks?
By clarifying premises
“All A are B…”
“Some A are B”
vs.
“All A are B, and vice-versa” “Some, but not all, A are B”
This is an example of how _____ affects reasoning
Comprehension
“All A are B…”
“All B are C”
What is the valid conclusion?
All A are C
“All A are B…”
“All C are B”
What is the invalid conclusion?
All A are C
Describe Ceraso and Provitera’s (1971) study on how comprehension affects reasoning
List 5 points
- Ps were presented with wooden blocks and had to reason about their properties
- In the “traditional” version of the task, people were given syllogisms such as:
All blocks with holes are red
All blocks with holes are triangular
- Ps had to identify the valid conclusion: “Some red blocks are triangular”
- In a modified version of the task, Ps were given more explicit instructions about the interpretation of the premises, such as:
Whenever I have a block with a hole it is red, but not all red blocks have holes
Whenever I have a block with a hole it is triangular, but not all triangular blocks have holes
- Ps had to identify the valid conclusion: “Some red blocks are triangular”
In Ceraso and Provitera’s (1971) study:
- Ps were presented with wooden blocks and had to reason about their properties
- In the “traditional” version of the task, people were given syllogisms such as:
All blocks with holes are red
All blocks with holes are triangular
- Ps had to identify the valid conclusion: “Some red blocks are triangular”
- In a modified version of the task, Ps were given more explicit instructions about the interpretation of the premises, such as:
Whenever I have a block with a hole it is red, but not all red blocks have holes
Whenever I have a block with a hole it is triangular, but not all triangular blocks have holes
- Ps had to identify the valid conclusion: “Some red blocks are triangular”
What were the results of the study? List 4 points
- In the “traditional” version of the task, only 1 out of 40 Ps correctly identified “Some red blocks are triangular”
- More than half said “All red blocks are triangular”, which is what we’d expect if they take “All A are B” to imply “All B are A”
- In a modified version of the task, 27 out of 40 Ps correctly responded “Some red blocks are triangular”
- Across a number of such problems, people scored an average of 58% correct with the traditional format but 94% correct with the modified versions.
What did Ceraso and Provitera (1971) argue about syllogistic reasoning errors?
These errors arise because people don’t properly
apprehend the premises in the way that the experimenter intends
However, it is unlikely that
premise misapprehension accounts for the full spectrum of performance on this kind of task
Who developed the Mental Models framework?
Philip Johnson-Laird
What framework did Philip Johnson-Laird develop?
The Mental Models framework
What is step 1 of the Mental Models framework?
Construct a mental model of world implied by premises
What is step 2 of the Mental Models framework?
Make a composite model and draw a conclusion
What is step 3 of the Mental Models framework?
Validate by searching for alternative models and checking they don’t contradict the conclusion
Which step of the Mental Models framework does this apply to?
a. Step 1
b. Step 2
c. Step 3
Make a composite model and draw a conclusion
b. Step 2
Which step of the Mental Models framework does this apply to?
a. Step 1
b. Step 2
c. Step 3
Validate by searching for alternative models and checking they don’t contradict the conclusion
c. Step 3
Which step of the Mental Models framework does this apply to?
a. Step 1
b. Step 2
c. Step 3
Construct a mental model of world implied by premises
a. Step 1
Which framework posits a sequence of processing steps?
The ‘mental models’ framework
The steps you take in your head to solve reasoning problems is known as…?
The ‘mental models’ framework
How many stages are there in the ‘mental models’ framework?
3 stages
When presented with these premises:
All Psychologists are comedians
All Comedians Are psychopaths
What happens in step 1 of the ‘mental models’ framework?
We construct a mental model of world implied by remises
e.g.
Psychologist Comedian
Psychologist Comedian
Comedian Psychopath
Comedian Psychopath
When presented with these premises:
All Psychologists are comedians
All Comedians Are psychopaths
What happens in step 2 of the ‘mental models’ framework?
We make a composite model and draw a conclusion
e.g.
Composite: Psychologist = Comedian = Psychopath
Conclusion:
All psychologists are psychopaths
When presented with these premises:
All Psychologists are comedians
All Comedians Are psychopaths
What happens in step 3 of the ‘mental models’ framework?
We validate by searching for alternative models and checking they don’t contradict the conclusion
e.g.
Conclusion: All psychologists are psychopaths
In this case there are no other models consistent with the premises, so accept the conclusion
Comprehension, Description and Validation are the 3 steps included in…?
The ‘mental models’ framework
What is the comprehension step of the ‘mental models’ framework?
Using language and background knowledge to construct a mental model of
the state of the world that is implied by the premises
What is the description step of the ‘mental models’ framework?
Combining the models implied by the premises into a composite, and use this to try to draw a conclusion that goes beyond re-iterating the premises.
What is the validation step of the ‘mental models’ framework?
Searching for alternative models
If all of these are consistent with the initial conclusion, it is judged valid
If one or more of the new models contradict the conclusion, reject it and try to construct an alternative which can then be validated
Conclusion: All psychologists are psychopaths
In this case there are no other models consistent with the premises, so accept the conclusion
Which step of the ‘mental models’ framework is this?
a. Comprehension/ step 1
b. Description/ step 2
c. Validation/ step 3
c. Validation/ step 3
Composite: Psychologist = Comedian = Psychopath
Conclusion:
All psychologists are psychopaths
Which step of the ‘mental models’ framework is this?
a. Comprehension/ step 1
b. Description/ step 2
c. Validation/ step 3
b. Description/ step 2
Mental Model:
Psychologist Comedian
Psychologist Comedian
Comedian Psychopath
Comedian Psychopath
Which step of the ‘mental models’ framework is this?
a. Comprehension/ step 1
b. Description/ step 2
c. Validation/ step 3
a. Comprehension/ step 1
True or False?
One-model syllogism should be relatively easy to solve
True
Why is one-model syllogism relatively easy to solve?
Because there is only one model that is consistent with the premises
Why are multiple-model syllogisms more challenging to solve?
Because there are several possible ways of combining the information in the premises
How do we solve multiple-model syllogisms using the ‘Mental Models’ framework?
e.g. Premises
No Artists are Bakers
All Bakers are Candlestick-makers
List 3 points
- We propose Model 1
Which would lead to the preliminary conclusion that “No Artists are Candlemakers” (or that “No Candlemakers are Artists”).
However, searching for alternative models during the validation step reveals that a second model is possible
- We propose Model 2
This model acknowledges the possibility of an artist-candlemaker, which refutes the initial conclusion.
A new conclusion, consistent with both of the models, is that “Some Artists are not Candlemakers”
However, a third model can also be constructed
- We propose Model 3
Again, this refutes the previous conclusion
The only conclusion that is consistent with all three mental models is that “Some Candlemakers are not Artists”
The more alternative models are considered, the ____ likely one is to draw the correct conclusion
a. More
b. Less
a. More
The more alternative models are considered, the more likely one is to …?
Draw the correct conclusion
People are more likely to draw the correct conclusion when …?
Alternative models are considered
True or False?
Considering alternative models requires more time, effort, and mental capacity
True
True or False?
If a reasoner fails to consider all of the alternative models, they are more likely to draw the correct inference – so multiple model syllogisms will be easier than single-model ones
False
If a reasoner fails to consider all of the alternative models, they are less likely to draw the correct inference – so multiple model syllogisms will be harder than single-model ones
Why do multiple-model syllogisms take longer to solve?
Because considering more models will require more time, effort, and processing-capacity
People with greater working memory, or those with more time/inclination to work on the task, will do better in…?
a. Multiple model syllogisms
b. Single-model syllogisms
a. Multiple model syllogisms
Who is better at multiple model syllogisms?
People with greater working memory, or those with more time/inclination to work on the task
What did Copeland and Radvansky (2004) do in their study on mental models?
List 3 points
- Ps completed a working memory span assessment
- Ps were presented with syllogisms:
“All cyclists are coffee drinkers
“All coffee drinkers are surgeons”
- Ps were presented with all 9 possible conclusions
(the 8 combinations of the two end terms “Cyclists” and “Surgeons” with the four quantifiers “All”, “None”, “Some” and “Some…not”, plus the option “no valid conclusion”)
In Copeland and Radvansky’s (2004) study:
- Ps completed a working memory span assessment
- Ps were presented with syllogisms:
“All cyclists are coffee drinkers
“All coffee drinkers are surgeons”
- Ps were presented with all 9 possible conclusions
(the 8 combinations of the two end terms “Cyclists” and “Surgeons” with the four quantifiers “All”, “None”, “Some” and “Some…not”, plus the option “no valid conclusion”)
What were the results of the study when there was only one-model?
87% of Ps got the correct conclusion
The average response times were 25 seconds
In Copeland and Radvansky’s (2004) study:
- Ps completed a working memory span assessment
- Ps were presented with syllogisms:
“All cyclists are coffee drinkers
“All coffee drinkers are surgeons”
- Ps were presented with all 9 possible conclusions
(the 8 combinations of the two end terms “Cyclists” and “Surgeons” with the four quantifiers “All”, “None”, “Some” and “Some…not”, plus the option “no valid conclusion”)
What were the results of the study when there were two-models?
40% of Ps got the correct conclusion
The average response times were 29 seconds
In Copeland and Radvansky’s (2004) study:
- Ps completed a working memory span assessment
- Ps were presented with syllogisms:
“All cyclists are coffee drinkers
“All coffee drinkers are surgeons”
- Ps were presented with all 9 possible conclusions
(the 8 combinations of the two end terms “Cyclists” and “Surgeons” with the four quantifiers “All”, “None”, “Some” and “Some…not”, plus the option “no valid conclusion”)
What were the results of the study when there were three-model?
34% of Ps got the correct conclusion
The average response times were 33 seconds
What did Copeland and Radvansky (2004) conclude about multiple models in their ‘mental models’ study?
When there are more possible models, conclusions are less accurate and the response times are slower
What did Copeland and Radvansky (2004) conclude about working memory in their ‘mental models’ study?
People with higher working memory are faster and more accurate at reasoning tasks, regardless of how many models there are
When there are more possible models, conclusions are ______ and the response times are ________
a. More accurate, Faster
b. More accurate, Slower
c. Less accurate, Faster
d. Less accurate, Slower
d. Less accurate, Slower
People with higher working memory are _____ and _____ at reasoning tasks, regardless of how many models there are
a. Faster, More accurate
b. Faster, Less accurate
c. Slower, More accurate
d. Slower, Less accurate
a. Faster, More accurate
People with higher working memory are faster and more accurate at reasoning tasks, regardless of how many models there are
What is one problem about Copeland and Radvansky’s (2004) conclusion?
It is not direct evidence for model construction/validation
True or False?
Problems with more possible mental models were solved more accurately, consistent with people sucessfully considering all of the possible states implied by the premises
False
Problems with more possible mental models were solved less accurately, consistent with people failing to consider all of the possible states implied by the premises
True or False?
Problems with more possible models were solved progressively more slowly, consistent with it taking time to construct each model and check the validity of preliminary conclusions
True
True or False?
Ps with higher working memory span were more accurate and faster at the
reasoning tasks, particularly for more complex syllogisms, consistent with model construction being a resource-intensive activity
True
Analysis of the response choices showed that they were better predicted by ______ than by _______
Better predicted by the mental models theory than by simple heuristics such as the “atmosphere” approach
Model construction is a ____ and ____ demanding activity
Time and Resource
Ps with higher working memory span were more accurate and faster at the
reasoning tasks, particularly for more complex syllogisms
What is this consistent with?
Model construction being a resource-intensive activity
Problems with more possible models were solved progressively more slowly
What is this consistent with?
Taking time to construct each model and check the validity of preliminary conclusions
Problems with more possible mental models were solved less accurately
What is this consistent with?
People failing to consider all of the possible states implied by the premises
Describe Newstead et al.’s (1999) study on mental models
List 3 points
- Participants were given syllogisms, with premises such as:
All of the buskers are computer operators
None of the computer operators are boxers
- Participants had to write down the conclusion (or if there was no valid conclusion)
- Straight after answering each problem, participants were given a list of the 9 possible conclusions and indicated which they had considered when coming up with their response
In Newstead et al.’s (1999) study:
- Participants were given syllogisms, with premises such as:
All of the buskers are computer operators
None of the computer operators are boxers
- Participants had to write down the conclusion (or if there was no valid conclusion)
- Straight after answering each problem, participants were given a list of the 9 possible conclusions and indicated which they had considered when coming up with their response
What were the results when there was only a single-model?
70% of Ps gave the correct conclusion
1.05 numbers were considered
In Newstead et al.’s (1999) study:
- Participants were given syllogisms, with premises such as:
All of the buskers are computer operators
None of the computer operators are boxers
- Participants had to write down the conclusion (or if there was no valid conclusion)
- Straight after answering each problem, participants were given a list of the 9 possible conclusions and indicated which they had considered when coming up with their response
What were the results when there were multiple-model?
12% of Ps gave the correct conclusion
1.12 numbers were considered
In Newstead et al.’s (1999) study:
- Participants were given syllogisms, with premises such as:
All of the buskers are computer operators
None of the computer operators are boxers
- Participants had to write down the conclusion (or if there was no valid conclusion)
- Straight after answering each problem, participants were given a list of the 9 possible conclusions and indicated which they had considered when coming up with their response
What were the results when the conclusion was indeterminate (no conclusion possible)?
19% of Ps gave the correct conclusion
1.12 numbers were considered
What did Newstead et al. (1999) conclude about multiple-model problems?
List 2 points
- Multiple-model problems are harder but people didn’t try to construct more models
- There was no correlation between the number of models constructed and the proportion of syllogisms solved correctly
Simply = No correlation between N considered and accuracy
“reasoners are able to construct alternative models…but [they] normally construct only one”
“reasoners are able to construct alternative models…but [they] normally construct only one”
Their first model often leads to an …?
Unbelievable conclusion
The contribution of background knowledge
and the role that reasoning plays in natural conversation
This is known as…?
Framing and experience
What is framing and experience?
The contribution of background knowledge
and the role that reasoning plays in natural conversation
What did Evans et al. (1983) do in their study?
List 2 points
- Ps were given valid and invalid syllogisms with believable and unbelievable conclusions
e.g. Valid + Believable
- No cigarettes are inexpensive
- Some addictive things are inexpensive
- Therefore, some addictive things are not cigarettes
Valid + Unbelievable
- No addictive things are inexpensive
- Some cigarettes are inexpensive
- Therefore, some cigarettes are not addictive
Invalid + Believable
- No addictive things are inexpensive
- Some cigarettes are inexpensive
- Therefore, some addictive things are not cigarettes
Invalid + Unbelievable
- No cigarettes are inexpensive
- Some addictive things are inexpensive
- Therefore, some cigarettes are not addictive
- Ps were asked to judge whether they think the statements were valid or invalid based on believable and unbelievable conclusions
In Evans et al.’s (1983) study, what were the results of the study when statements were valid and conclusions were believable?
89% of people judged correctly
In Evans et al.’s (1983) study, what were the results of the study when statements were valid and conclusions were unbelievable?
56% of people judged correctly
In Evans et al.’s (1983) study, what were the results of the study when statements were invalid and conclusions were believable?
71% of people judged correctly
In Evans et al.’s (1983) study, what were the results of the study when statements were invalid and conclusions were unbelievable?
10% of people judged correctly
True or False?
Believability does not affect the % of people who het the answer right for valid statements
False
Believability affects the % of people who het the answer right for valid statements
True or False?
There is a relationship between validity and believability
True
What did Evans et al. (1983) conclude in their study?
List 2 points
- Plausibility increased the judged validity of both valid and invalid arguments
- Judgments about argument validity are influenced by beliefs both about the conclusions themselves and about the probability that those conclusions will be true (belief bias)
Judgments about argument validity are influenced by …?
List 2 points
- Beliefs about the conclusions themselves
- Beliefs about the probability that those conclusions will be true (belief bias)
What hypothesis attempted to explain the belief bias?
The selective scrutiny hypothesis
What does the selective scrutiny hypothesis propose?
People initially evaluate the plausibility of the conclusion
If it is reasonable, they accept it – without engaging in any actual “reasoning” at all
The scrutiny of the logical connection between premises and conclusion only arises when the conclusion is unbelievable
People initially evaluate the plausibility of the conclusion
If it is reasonable, they accept it – without engaging in any actual “reasoning” at all
The scrutiny of the logical connection between premises and conclusion only arises when the conclusion is unbelievable
Which hypothesis proposes this?
The selective scrutiny hypothesis
Validity does affect the acceptance of believable arguments
What does this mean?
People reject invalid arguments with plausible conclusions
What does the misinterpreted necessity hypothesis propose?
People don’t know how to respond when a conclusion is possible but not logically necessary
(E.g. All A are B; All B are C; Therefore, all C are A. It might be true that all C are A, but it is not a logical necessity.)
In such cases, they might use believability to make their decision
People don’t know how to respond when a conclusion is possible but not logically necessary
(E.g. All A are B; All B are C; Therefore, all C are A. It might be true that all C are A, but it is not a logical necessity.)
In such cases, they might use believability to make their decision
Which hypothesis proposes this?
The misinterpreted necessity hypothesis
True or False?
Belief does not influence acceptance even when conclusions are deductively valid – it is not limited to indeterminate uncertainty
False
Belief influences acceptance even when conclusions are deductively valid – it is not limited to indeterminate uncertainty
What did Klauer et al. (2000) find in their observation of statements accepted as valid when conclusions are either believable or unbelievable?
Belief influences acceptance even when conclusions are deductively valid – it is not limited to indeterminate uncertainty.
e.g. Even when statement was invalid, Ps judged it as valid because the conclusion was believable
What does the “dual process” framework propose?
People only construct one model
If the conclusion is believable: look for consistent model
If the conclusion is unbelievable: look for inconsistent model
If desired model can’t be constructed then swayed by belief
People only construct one model
If the conclusion is believable: look for consistent model
If the conclusion is unbelievable: look for inconsistent model
If desired model can’t be constructed then swayed by belief
This is known as…?
“Dual process” framework
According to the “dual process” framework, if the conclusion is believable, what do we look for?
Consistent model
According to the “dual process” framework, if the conclusion is unbelievable, what do we look for?
Inconsistent model
According to the “dual process” framework, we look for consistent model when the conclusion is…?
Believable
According to the “dual process” framework, we look for inconsistent model when the conclusion is…?
Unbelievable
What does belief do?
List 2 things
- Produces overall bias
- Affects reasoning itself
What…?
- Produces overall bias
- Affects reasoning itself
Belief
Rather than belief influencing judgments before reasoning or after reasoning some have argued that belief exerts two separate effects
What are they?
- Inducing an overall bias to accept/reject the conclusion
- Shaping the reasoning process itself
What is selective scrutiny?
Belief influencing judgments before (or instead of) reasoning
What is misinterpreted necessity?
Belief influencing judgments after reasoning
Belief influencing judgments after reasoning
This is known as…?
Misinterpreted necessity
Belief influencing judgments before (or instead of) reasoning
This is known as…?
Selective scrutiny
Why do people typically generate just one mental model?
Because of capacity limits
If the conclusion is believable, people attempt to construct a model that is ______ with this claim
a. Inconsistent
b. Consistent
b. Consistent
If the unbelievable conclusion was “All A are C”, what model would Ps construct?
“Some A are not C” that was consistent with the information in the premises
If the conclusion is unbelievable, people attempt to construct a model which ______ this claim
a. Refutes
b. Supports
a. Refutes
What happens when the attempt to construct the “desired” model fails?
The participant is in a state of
uncertainty
They would be somewhat swayed by their belief about the base-rate probability
that the conclusion is valid
What is one advantage of “dual process” theory/framework?
It combines a description of the cognitive operations by which people reason with the idea that these operations will be shaped by prior beliefs and biases
Doing so captures the interacting effects of validity, believability, and base-rates
What are the 4 approaches to propositional reasoning?
- Identifying simplifying strategies
- Interpretation of terms
- Process models
- Effects of framing and experience
Reasoning about propositions containing the conditionals: If, And, Not, and Or
This is known as…?
Propositional reasoning
If it’s raining I take the bus
This is an example of what type of reasoning?
Propositional reasoning
What is propositional reasoning?
Reasoning about propositions containing the conditionals: If, And, Not, and Or
Reasoning with IF, AND, NOT, OR is known as…?
Propositional reasoning
Based on propositional reasoning, when given the statement “if it is raining, then I take the bus”, what is the valid conclusion when it is raining?
I took the bus
Based on propositional reasoning, when given the statement “if it is raining, then I take the bus”, what is the valid conclusion when you don’t take the bus?
It is not raining
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Suppose you learn that it is raining, and infer that I therefore took the bus. This is a valid type of inference, called …?
The modus ponens (MP).
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Suppose you learn that I did not take the bus, and conclude that it is not raining. This is a valid inference, called …?
The modus tollens (MT)
Based on propositional reasoning, when given the statement “if it is raining, then I take the bus”, what is the typical conclusion you’d give if you took the bus?
It is raining
But this is invalid
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Suppose you learn that I took the bus and conclude that it must be raining.
This is called …?
Affirming the consequent (AC)
or Affirmation of consequent (AC)
Affirming the consequent (AC) or Affirmation of consequent (AC) is usually regarded as…?
Fallacy
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Raining
Conclude = Took the bus
What type of propositional reasoning is this?
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA) (Invalid)
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Took the bus
Conclude = Raining
What type of propositional reasoning is this?
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA) (Invalid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Did not take the bus
Conclude = Not raining
What type of propositional reasoning is this?
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA) (Invalid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Did not take the bus
Conclude = Not raining
What % of people concluded this (modus tollens)?
74%
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Took the bus
Conclude = Raining
What % of people concluded this (affirmation of consequent)?
64%
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Raining
Conclude = Took the bus
What % of people concluded this (modus ponens)?
97%
Based on propositional reasoning, when given the statement “if it is raining, then I take the bus”, what is the typical conclusion you’d give if it is not raining?
You did not take the bus
This is invalid
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
You might learn that it is not raining, and conclude that I did not take the bus.
This is known as…?
Denial of the antecedent (DA)
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Not raining
Conclude = Did not take the bus
What % of people concluded this (denial of antecedent)?
56%
“If it is raining, then I take the bus”
Given = Not raining
Conclude = Did not take the bus
What type of propositional reasoning is this?
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA)
Name 2 types of valid inferences in propositional reasoning
- Modus ponens
- Modus tollens
Name 2 types of invalid inferences in propositional reasoning
- Affirmation of consequent (AC)
- Denial of antecedent (DA)
Clearly, people frequently commit the “fallacies” of …?
List 2
- Denying the antecedent
- Affirming the consequent
Describe Wason’s (1968) study on the four card selection task
List 2 points
- Wason laid out four cards in front of participants
- Ps were told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other
“If there is a D on one side of any card, then there is a 3 on its other side”
- They had to choose which cards to flip over
Cards:
D
K
3
7
In Oaksford and Chater’s (1994) replication of Wason’s (1968) study on the four card selection:
- Four cards in front of participants
- Ps were told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other
“If there is a D on one side of any card, then there is a 3 on its other side”
- They had to choose which cards to flip over
Cards:
D
K
3
7
What were the results?
List 5 points
- 1 out of 34 participants chose the correct cards (D and 7)
- 89% chose D
- 16% chose K
- 62% chose 3
- 25% chose 7
Describe Oaksford and Chater’s (1994) conclusion on why Ps chose the cards that they did
List 3 points
- Turning over the D card is a fairly obvious step; if there was anything other than a 3 on the reverse, it would mean the rule was false, so this is a “correct” card choice.
- The correct choice is the 7, because if there is a D on the other side of that then rule is false
- A large proportion of Ps also choose the 3 card, presumably thinking that there should be a D on the other side.
However, this is not the “right” answer; the rule doesn’t say that there has to be a D on the other side of every 3, so this card is irrelevant.
Ps were supposed to break the rules instead of look for continuing evidence
What is confirmation bias?
A tendency to seek evidence that the rule is true rather than trying to falsify it.
Simply = When people choose answers that confirm the rule/theory
A tendency to seek evidence that the rule is true rather than trying to falsify it.
Simply = When people choose answers that confirm the rule/theory
This is known as…?
Confirmation bias
Identifying the simplifying strategies (heuristics) that people sometimes use to reach a solution
This applies to…?
a. Syllogistic reasoning only
b. Propositional reasoning only
c. Both syllogistic reasoning and propositional reasoning d. Neither syllogistic reasoning nor propositional reasoning
c. Both syllogistic reasoning and propositional reasoning
Approach to propositional reasoning involves identifying the simplifying strategies that people sometimes use to reach a solution
This is known as…?
Heuristics
Describe the study by Evans and Lynch (1973) on heuristics in propositional reasoning
List 3 points
- Ps were presented with 4 cards = S, 9, G, 4
- Ps were presented with either the statement:
“If there is an S on one side, then there will be a 9 on the other”
or
“If there is an S on one side, then there will not be a 9 on the other”
- Ps were asked to select which cards to turn over
In Evans and Lynch’s (1973) study
- Ps were presented with 4 cards = S, 9, G, 4
- Ps were presented with either the statement:
“If there is an S on one side, then there will be a 9 on the other”
or
“If there is an S on one side, then there will not be a 9 on the other”
- Ps were asked to select which cards to turn over
What were the results when Ps were presented with the statement, “If there is an S on one side, then there will not be a 9 on the other.”
List 4 points
- 92% of Ps chose S
- 58% of Ps chose 9
- 4% of Ps chose G
- 8% of Ps chose 4
In Evans and Lynch’s (1973) study
- Ps were presented with 4 cards = S, 9, G, 4
- Ps were presented with either the statement:
“If there is an S on one side, then there will be a 9 on the other”
or
“If there is an S on one side, then there will not be a 9 on the other”
- Ps were asked to select which cards to turn over
What were the results when Ps were presented with the statement, “If there is an S on one side, then there will be a 9 on the other.”
List 4 points
- 88% of Ps chose S
- 50% of Ps chose 9
- 8% of Ps chose G
- 33% of Ps chose 4
Confirmatory testing should lead people in the second row to select S and 4 (i.e., to seek instances where the rule is true), but in fact participants selected the cards which were mentioned in the rule (S and 9). In the case of “if P then not-Q”, this
actually leads to the logically correct response
What does this conclude?
Simply choosing items that are explicitly mentioned in the problem statement – a “matching heuristic” – might be one simplifying strategy when faced with this kind of task
True or False?
Many people misunderstand the rule, but reason consistently after that
True
Propositional reasoning “errors” may often reflect …?
The participant’s interpretation of the terms
In the selection task: “If there is an D on one side…” might be taken to mean “If there is an D on the top of the card [i.e., on the part I can see]…”.
What card(s) should to be turned over to check the rule?
The only card you need to turn over
In the selection task: “If there is an D on one side…” might be taken to mean “If there is an D on the top of the card [i.e., on the part I can see]…”. In this case, the only card you need to turn over to check the rule is the “D” card.
Why do people make errors in this task?
Some people might take “If” to be biconditional
i.e., to mean “If and only if…”, so that “If P, then Q” also means “If Q, then P”)
Under this interpretation of “If”, the participant would need to turn over all 4 cards – or just the “P” and “Q” cards if they think the rule applies to the visible faces of the cards
Gebauer and Laming (1997) argued that the common selection of “P” and “Q” results from just this pattern of understanding of the rule
Biconditional interpretation of “If” would results in …? List 2 things
Affirming the Consequent and Denial of the Antecedent fallacies
What contributes to Affirming the Consequent and Denial of the Antecedent fallacies in propositional reasoning?
Biconditional interpretation
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
What should the model be?
Circle -> Triangle
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
What should the conclusion be when Given = Circle?
Conclude = Triangle (MP)
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
What is usually the conclusion when Given = Triangle?
Conclude = Circle (AC)
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
What is usually the conclusion when Given = No triangle?
Conclude = No conclusion possible (failure to draw Modus Tollens)
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
Given = Circle
Conclude = Triangle
This is known as…?
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA) (Invalid)
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
Given = Triangle
Conclude = Circle
This is known as…?
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA) (Invalid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
Given = No triangle
Conclude = No conclusion
This is known as…?
Failure to draw Modus Tollens
How can we avoid the AC fallacy and the failure to draw the valid MT inference in the “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle” task?
We can use the mental effort to “flesh out” the other mental models that are consistent with the information in the conditional by constructing models that explicitly incorporate “No circles” and “No triangles”
When given the statement “If there is a Circle, then there is a Triangle”
Given = No triangle
Conclude = No circle
This is known as…?
a. Modus ponens (Valid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
c. Affirmation of consequent (AC) (Invalid)
d. Denial of antecedent (DA) (Invalid)
b. Modus tollens (Valid)
True or False?
Heuristic responding (e.g., the matching rule) and interpretational confusion capture all of the challenges posed by people’s conditional inferences.
False
Heuristic responding (e.g., the matching rule) and interpretational confusion don’t capture all of the challenges posed by people’s conditional inferences.
Which is more difficult?
Modus Tollens or Modus Ponens
Modus Tollens
Performance on selection task is made easier by using ______ materials.
a. Familiar
b. Unfamiliar
a. Familiar
The selection task seems to be easier when it is cast in
terms of _____ rather than _____
Familiar social rules rather than abstract symbols
Describe Griggs & Cox’s (1982) study on the selection task using familiar social rules
List 3 points
- Ps were asked to imagine that they are police officers responsible for ensuring that people conform to the rule “If a person is drinking beer, then the person must be over 19 years of age”.
- Ps were given 4 cards. Each card represented a person, with their age on one side and what they are drinking on the other
- Ps were asked to “select the card/cards that you definitely need to turn over to determine whether or not people are violating the rule”
Cards =
Drinking a Beer
Drinking a Coke
16 years of age
22 years of age
In Griggs & Cox’s (1982) study:
- Ps were asked to imagine that they are police officers responsible for ensuring that people conform to the rule “If a person is drinking beer, then the person must be over 19 years of age”.
- Ps were given 4 cards. Each card represented a person, with their age on one side and what they are drinking on the other
- Ps were asked to “select the card/cards that you definitely need to turn over to determine whether or not people are violating the rule”
Cards =
Drinking a Beer
Drinking a Coke
16 years of age
22 years of age
What were the results?
73% (29 out of 40) of Ps chose the correct cards=
Drinking a Beer
16 years of age
In Griggs & Cox’s (1982) abstract version of the study:
- Ps were given the statement “If a card has an ‘A’ on one side, then it has a ‘3’ on the other side”
- Ps were given 4 cards.
- Ps were asked to “select the card/cards that you definitely need to turn over to determine whether or not the cards violated the rule”
Cards =
A
B
2
3
What were the results?
0% of Ps chose the correct cards=
A and 2
Why do Ps perform significantly better in the underage drinking version of the selection task than in the abstract version?
People have prior experience with the rule in question
Griggs and Cox (1982) interpreted their results as reflecting retrieval of previous experience with the rule (and with instances that would violate it)
Support for this idea comes from cross-cultural studies in which thematic framing only improved performance for participants whose country has a rule of that kind (e.g., Cheng & Holyoak, 1985).
True or False?
Familiarity with the materials cannot be the whole explanation for superior performance with
modified versions of the selection task
True
Reasoning about obligations and permissible behaviours is called …?
Deontic reasoning
True or False?
Deontic reasoning is a different type of thinking from that required by the abstract selection task
True
What is deontic reasoning?
Reasoning about obligations and permissible behaviours
Familiarity with the materials cannot be the whole explanation for superior performance with
modified versions of the selection task
Why?
Because we also see improvements with rules that are completely novel
Describe Cosmides’s (1989) study on deontic reasoning
List 2 points
- Ps either went through condition 1 or condition 2
- Condition 1 = Ps were presented with the rule, framed as a simple description of co-occurrence observed by an anthropologist
e.g. “If a man eats cassava root, then he must have a tattoo on his face”
- Condition 2 = Ps were presented with the same rule, but framed as a social contract (cassava root being an aphrodisiac that the tribe’s Elders decree should be limited to married men, who are distinguished by having facial tattoos)
- Ps were asked to choose between 4 options
Tattoo
No tattoo
Eats cassava
Eats molo nuts
- Ps either went through condition 1 or condition 2
- Condition 1 = Ps were presented with the rule, framed as a simple description of co-occurrence observed by an anthropologist
e.g. “If a man eats cassava root, then he must have a tattoo on his face”
- Condition 2 = Ps were presented with the same rule, but framed as a social contract (cassava root being an aphrodisiac that the tribe’s Elders decree should be limited to married men, who are distinguished by having facial tattoos)
- Ps were asked to choose between 4 options
Tattoo
No tattoo
Eats cassava
Eats molo nuts
What were the results of Cosmides’s (1989) study in the first condition?
The proportion of participants who chose the “P, not-Q” combination (i.e., “Eats cassava” and “No tattoo”) was only 21%, similar to the proportion seen with abstract materials
- Ps either went through condition 1 or condition 2
- Condition 1 = Ps were presented with the rule, framed as a simple description of co-occurrence observed by an anthropologist
- Condition 2 = Ps were presented with the same rule, but framed as a social contract (cassava root being an aphrodisiac that the tribe’s Elders decree should be limited to married men, who are distinguished by having facial tattoos)
e.g. “If a man eats cassava root, then he must have a tattoo on his face”
- Ps were asked to choose between 4 options
Tattoo
No tattoo
Eats cassava
Eats molo nuts
What were the results of Cosmides’s (1989) study in the second condition?
The proportion of participants who chose the “P, not-Q” combination (i.e., “Eats cassava” and “No tattoo”) was 75%
What did Cosmides argue about social contract rules in influencing proportional reasoning?
Humans have an evolved sensitivity to violations of social contracts, which can be thought of as conditionals of the form “If you take a benefit, then you pay a cost”.
Cosmides employed a “switched” version of the social contract rule:
“If a man has a tattoo on his face, then he eats cassava root”
What would be the logical answer?
Cards =
Tattoo
No tattoo
Eats cassava
Eats molo nuts
The logically-correct answer is to turn over the “Tattoo” and “Eats molo nuts” cards
Cosmides employed a “switched” version of the social contract rule:
“If a man has a tattoo on his face, then he eats cassava root”
The logically-correct answer is to turn over the “Tattoo” and “Eats molo nuts” cards
What % of people got the correct answer?
What % of people found cheats?
4% of Ps
However, if people are still on the hunt for cheats, they will focus on the “no tattoo” and “eats cassava” cards. 67% of people did this.
A more general approach posits that choices in the selection task depend on the relevance or utility
of the various cards to the question that they think they are being asked.
This is known as…?
Framing and Experience
In a selection task for proportional reasoning, cards are often chosen based on…?
How relevant/useful they are in a particular context
What is matching heuristic?
Items mentioned in rule seem relevant
Items mentioned in rule seem relevant
This is known as…?
Matching heuristic
What is cheater detection?
High utility to finding took-benefit-didn’t-pay
High utility to finding took-benefit-didn’t-pay
This is known as…?
Cheater detection
What does the matching bias/heuristic suggests?
Suggests that people select these irrespective of the rule they are being asked to test
Suggests that people select these irrespective of the rule they are being asked to test
This is known as…?
Matching heuristic
What is the main problem with the cheater-detection theory?
List 3 points
- We see facilitation of performance on the selection task (i.e., increased P, not-Q selections) with rules which cannot realistically be described as “If you take a benefit, then you pay a cost”
- For example, Manktelow reports a study in which the rule was “If you clear up spilt blood, then you must wear rubber gloves”.
- Approximately 75% of participants correctly choose the P, not-Q cards (i.e., Clearing up Blood, and Not Wearing Gloves) with this framing, but “clearing up spilt blood” doesn’t constitute a “benefit” from a social contract
For example, Manktelow reports a study in which the rule was “If you clear up spilt blood, then you must wear rubber gloves”.
Approximately 75% of participants correctly choose the P, not-Q cards (i.e., Clearing up Blood, and Not Wearing Gloves) with this framing, but “clearing up spilt blood” doesn’t constitute a “benefit” from a social contract
What does this suggest?
Cheater detection theory is flawed
Describe Girotto et al.’s (2001) first experiment on perceived relevance in the selection task
List 4 points
- Ps took the role of employees in a travel agency, and went through four successive versions of the Selection Task
- “True descriptive”
It is 1979. A customer would like to travel to East Africa but is allergic to the cholera immunisation. You seek to show the customer that there is a rule that “If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunized against cholera”
There are four cards representing countries and the vaccines they require:
Somalia
Sweden
Requires Cholera
Requires None.
- “True deontic”
Now your boss asks you to check whether customers have followed the rule.
The four cards represent travellers and their immunisation status:
Mr Neri, Ethiopia
Mr Verdi, Canada
Immunized, Cholera Immunized, None
- Ps were asked: “Which cards do you need to turn over to see if people have followed the rule?”
In Girotto et al.’s (2001) first experiment:
- Ps took the role of employees in a travel agency, and went through four successive versions of the Selection Task
- “True descriptive”
It is 1979. A customer would like to travel to East Africa but is allergic to the cholera immunisation. You seek to show the customer that there is a rule that “If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunized against cholera”
There are four cards representing countries and the vaccines they require:
Somalia
Sweden
Requires Cholera
Requires None.
- Ps were asked: “Which cards do you need to turn over to see if people have followed the rule?”
What were the results?
65% of Ps chose the P,Q combination (Somalia and Cholera)
Only 9% chose P,not-Q (Somalia, None)
In Girotto et al.’s (2001) first experiment:
- Ps took the role of employees in a travel agency, and went through four successive versions of the Selection Task
- “True deontic”
Now your boss asks you to check whether customers have followed the rule.
The four cards represent travellers and their immunisation status:
Mr Neri, Ethiopia
Mr Verdi, Canada
Immunized, Cholera Immunized, None
- Ps were asked: “Which cards do you need to turn over to see if people have followed the rule?”
What were the results?
26% of Ps made the P,Q selection (Mr Neri, Cholera)
62% chose P,not-Q (Mr Neri, None)
What did Girotto et al. (2001) conclude about framing tasks?
Framing the task as one of rule-violation boosts the selection of the logically-correct P,not-Q combination, as predicted by theories that argue for specialized systems for deontic reasoning/ cheater detection
Framing the task as one of rule-violation _____ the selection of the logically-correct P,not-Q combination
a. Worsens
b. Boosts
b. Boosts
Describe Girotto et al.’s (2001) second experiment on perceived relevance in the selection task
List 3 points
- Ps took the role of employees in a travel agency, and went through four successive versions of the Selection Task
- “False descriptive”
Now is it the present day and you are thinking about going to East Africa yourself, and are allergic to the cholera immunisation.
However, you think that the immunisation is no longer required. Your boss disagrees. You are confronted with cards representing countries and their required immunisations:
Kenya
Ireland
Requires Cholera
Required None
- “False deontic”
It turns out that you were right and that the rule is no longer applicable. Your boss is worried that she may have mis-informed customers, and asks you to check client records to see whether customers have followed the rule.
The four cards are:
Mr Rossi, Eritrea
Mr Bianco, France
Immunised, Cholera
Immunised
- Ps were asked: Which do you have to turn over to see whether it is true that “If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunised against cholera?”
In Girotto et al.’s (2001) second experiment:
- Ps took the role of employees in a travel agency, and went through four successive versions of the Selection Task
- “False descriptive”
Now is it the present day and you are thinking about going to East Africa yourself, and are allergic to the cholera immunisation.
However, you think that the immunisation is no longer required. Your boss disagrees. You are confronted with cards representing countries and their required immunisations:
Kenya
Ireland
Requires Cholera
Required None
- Ps were asked: Which do you have to turn over to see whether it is true that “If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunised against cholera?”
What were the results?
15% of Ps chose P,Q (Kenya, Cholera)
47% of Ps chose P,not-Q (Kenya, None)
Although this is not a situation where we are invited to detect rule-breakers, people have been led to the correct P,not-Q selection by the perceived relevance of those options
The framing leads one to regard it as important to establish that the boss is wrong
In Girotto et al.’s (2001) second experiment:
- Ps took the role of employees in a travel agency, and went through four successive versions of the Selection Task
- “False deontic”
It turns out that you were right and that the rule is no longer applicable. Your boss is worried that she may have mis-informed customers, and asks you to check client records to see whether customers have followed the rule.
The four cards are:
Mr Rossi, Eritrea
Mr Bianco, France
Immunised, Cholera
Immunised
- Ps were asked: Which do you have to turn over to see whether it is true that “If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunised against cholera?”
What were the results?
71% of Ps chose P,Q (Rossi, Cholera)
15% of Ps chose P,not-Q (Rossi, None)
Even though the framing is now deontic, people are making the classic selection-task-error of choosing P and Q.
e.g.
When given the statement
“If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunized against cholera”
With the cards:
Mr Neri, Ethiopia
Mr Verdi, Canada
Cholera
None
Ps chose Mr Neri, Ethiopia and None (Correct)
But when given the statement
“If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunized against cholera”
With the cards:
Mr Rossi, Eritrea
Mr Bianco, France
Cholera
None
Ps chose Mr Rossi, Eritrea and Cholera (Incorrect)
Why?
Because the wording of the task gives great relevance to the possibility that people might have followed a rule unnecessarily (and might therefore sue the company, for example).
It turns out that you were right and that the rule is no longer applicable. Your boss is worried that she may have mis-informed customers, and asks you to check client records to see whether customers have followed the rule. The four cards are: Mr Rossi, Eritrea; Mr Bianco, France; Immunised, Cholera; Immunised
Is this…?
a. False deontic
b. False descriptive
c. True descriptive
d. True deontic
a. False deontic
Now is it the present day and you are thinking about going to East Africa yourself, and are allergic to the cholera immunisation. However, you think that the immunisation is no longer required. Your boss disagrees. You are confronted with cards representing countries and their required immunisations: Kenya; Ireland; Requires Cholera; Required None.
Is this…?
a. False deontic
b. False descriptive
c. True descriptive
d. True deontic
b. False descriptive
It is 1979. A customer would like to travel to East Africa but is allergic to the cholera immunisation. You seek to show the customer that there is a rule that “If a person travels to any East African country, then that person must be immunized against cholera”. There are four cards representing countries and the vaccines they require: Somalia; Sweden; Requires Cholera; Requires None.
Is this…?
a. False deontic
b. False descriptive
c. True descriptive
d. True deontic
c. True descriptive
Now your boss asks you to check whether customers have followed the rule.
The four cards represent travellers and their immunisation status: Mr Neri, Ethiopia; Mr
Verdi, Canada; Immunised, Cholera; Immunised, None.
Is this…?
a. False deontic
b. False descriptive
c. True descriptive
d. True deontic
d. True deontic
The interpretation of “If” as conditional or biconditional can depend on …?
The content of the rule
Describe Wagner-Egger’s (2007) study on the interpretation of “If” as a conditional or biconditional
List 3 points
- 2 deontic versions of the 4 card task and probed not just Ps’ card selections, but also their understanding of the rule (by asking what would have to be on the reverse of each card, assuming the rule is true).
- In one version, the rule was “If a customer is drinking beer, then he/she must be over 18 years of age”.
Most participants interpreted “If” as a conditional (i.e., you might be over 18 and not
drink beer!) and made the “correct” p-not-q (“beer”, “under 18”) card selection
- In another version, the rule was “If a customer spends more than 100 Swiss Francs, then he/she receives a free gift”.
Now most participants interpret the rule
biconditionally (i.e., as meaning “if and only if you spend the money do you get the gift”) and the “p-not-q” card selection pattern was less frequent than turning over all 4 cards (as one
should, if one has adopted the biconditional interpretation of “If”)
In the Mental Models framework, past knowledge affects the ease with which a full set of models will be fleshed-out
Given an example of this
“If it was foggy, then the match was cancelled.The
match was not cancelled.”
This readily leads to the usually-difficult Modus Tollens conclusion (“It was not foggy”) because existing knowledge of the fog-sports relationship means we readily flesh out the full set of mental models supported by the conditional “If, then” statement.
“If it was foggy, then the match was cancelled.The
match was not cancelled.”
This readily leads to the usually-difficult Modus Tollens conclusion (“It was not foggy”)
Why?
Because existing knowledge of the fog-sports relationship means we readily flesh out the full set of mental models supported by the conditional “If, then” statement
Mental Models theory can accommodate the effects of relevance and of differing
interpretations of the premises (e.g., conditional vs biconditional), by …?
Assuming that these factors influence the formulation of the “initial” model and the fully explicit set of models
In the Mental Models framework, ______ affects the ease with which a full set of models will be fleshed-out
Past knowledge
By assuming that these factors influence the formulation of the “initial” model and the fully explicit set of models, what can Mental Models do?
Accommodate the effects of relevance and differing interpretations of the premises (e.g., conditional vs biconditional)
People sometimes solve reasoning problems by relying on…?
Simple heuristics
People may reason correctly but …?
Have a different interpretation of the terms than that intended by the experimenter
________ is an ambitious, imperfect description of the process by which people reason
Mental Models
Any successful account of reasoning must incorporate 2 things
What are they?
- The effects of experience
- The “real world” use of reasoning as a tool for decision-making and communication
True or False?
Human reasoning often uses formal logic
False
Human reasoning often deviates from formal logic
True or False?
We can identify simplifying strategies that capture some aspects of performance
True
True or False?
People interpret the terms of reasoning problems the same way as the intended
meaning of the experimenter
False
People often interpret the terms of reasoning problems differently from the intended
meaning of the experimenter, but otherwise reason appropriately
We can try to develop detailed accounts of the steps by which people reason
What is one example of this?
Mental Models theory
Responses are greatly influenced by 3 factors
What are they?
- The framing of the problem
- The P’s background knowledge
- The way that Ps interpret the task
True or False?
Responses are greatly influenced by the framing of the problem only
False
Responses are greatly influenced by the framing of the problem, the P’s
background knowledge, and the way that they interpret the task
True or False?
Contextual and interpretational effects mean that, in many cases, our
“reasoning” experiments may not be studying the types of reasoning that the experiments originally intended at all
True
Our “reasoning” experiments may not be studying the types of reasoning that the experiments originally intended at all
Why?
Because of contextual and interpretational effects
What can examining the patterns of performance across multiple versions of the tasks tell us?
Tells us something about how people “think” when they tackle complex problems
Examining the patterns of performance across multiple versions of the tasks
can…?
List 2 things
- Illuminate the mental processes that underlie performance on these tasks
- Tell us something about how people “think” when they tackle complex problems
How can we illuminate the mental processes that underlie performance on these tasks?
By examining the patterns of performance across multiple versions of the tasks
Distinguish between the four different theoretical approaches
- Heuristics: Atmosphere and Matching
- Interpretation of terms
- Process models
- Framing and experience
What are the 2 types of heuristics in reasoning?
- Atmosphere
- Matching
Contains quantifiers
a. Syllogistic reasoning
b. Propositional reasoning
a. Syllogistic reasoning
Contains conditionals
a. Syllogistic reasoning
b. Propositional reasoning
b. Propositional reasoning
Contains ALL, SOME,NO, SOME…NOT
a. Syllogistic reasoning
b. Propositional reasoning
a. Syllogistic reasoning
Contains IF, AND, NOT, OR
a. Syllogistic reasoning
b. Propositional reasoning
b. Propositional reasoning
If p (antecedent) then q (consequent) what are the 4 types of conclusions?
- Modus Ponens
- Modus Tollens
- Affirmation of the consequent
- Denial of the antecedent
Explain the Wason selection task in one sentence
Four cards following the: If p then q format
What factors that improve performance in the Wason selection task?
List 2 things
- Deontic reasoning
- Subject to framing and utility
Four cards following the: If p then q format
This is known as…?
Wason selection task
