Week 8 Lecture 7 - reasoning

Question 1

What is inductive reasoning

Answer 1

Start with a premise and arrive at a conclusion

Question 2

What is deductive reasoning?

Answer 2

Given a premise is true you can move towards a true conclusion (strict logic)

Question 3

What are the 2 kinds of deductive reasoning?

Answer 3

• syllogisms
• propositional reasoning

Question 4

What do syllogisms typically comprise of?

Answer 4

two premises and a conclusion, and involve the quantifiers all, no, some, and some…not

Question 5

What do you conclude with a syllogism?

Answer 5

given relationship between A and B AND B and C

can conclude something about A and C

Question 6

How might heuristics explain people’s difficulties with syllogisms?

Answer 6

Atmosphere theory
- the mood of the premises influences judgments about what the mood of the conclusion should be
- “Mood” means 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

Question 7

What evidence is there for heuristics explaining syllogisms?

Answer 7

• ppts matched mood of premise to mood of conclusion even though there was no correct answer
• provides evidence for atmosphere theory
• however, doesn’t explain why people sometimes correctly infer “no valid
  conclusion”

Question 8

How might comprehension explain syllogism difficulties?

Answer 8

“Errors” in syllogistic reasoning partly reflect differences between the use of language in formal logic and in everyday life.

Question 9

What evidence is there for comprehension as an explanation of syllogism difficulties?

Answer 9

Clarifying premises greatly reduces the “error” rates
(Ceraso & Provitera, 1971)

Question 10

How mental models might explain difficulties in understanding syllogisms.

What are the steps involved in this approach?

Answer 10

• Step 1 Construct a mental model of world implied by premises
• Step 2 Make a composite model and draw a conclusion
• Step 3 Validate by searching for alternative models and checking they don’t contradict the conclusion

Question 11

What are the 2 types of mental models?

Answer 11

single and multiple

Question 12

In multiple mental models, the more alternative models are considered, the more likely one is to draw the correct conclusion (example of a research premise)

What does this require more of though?

Answer 12

time, effort, mental capacity

Question 13

What did evidence about multiple mental models for syllogisms find?

Answer 13

• More possible models = less accurate + slower
• Higher working memory = faster and more accurate
• But not direct evidence for model construction/validation

Question 14

What did a study directly testing the generation of alternative models in mental models of syllogisms find?

Answer 14

“reasoners are able to construct alternative models…but [they] normally construct only one”

Question 15

How might framing and experience explain difficulties in understanding syllogisms?

Answer 15

Syllogistic reasoning is affected by the framing of the problem and the participant’s prior experiences.

Question 16

What did a study into framing and experience and syllogisms find?

Answer 16

• 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.

Question 17

What is the dual process framework of reasoning?

Answer 17

• 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
• Belief produces overall bias AND affects reasoning itself

Question 18

What is propositional reasoning?

Answer 18

Propositional reasoning involves reasoning about propositions containing the conditionals: If, And, Not, and Or.

Question 19

How might heuristics explain difficulties with propositional reasoning?

Answer 19

confirmation bias –> confirmatory testing

Question 20

What did a study into heuristics and propositional reasoning find?

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

How might comprehension explain difficulties with propositional reasoning?

Answer 21

propositional reasoning “errors” may often reflect the participant’s interpretation of the terms.

Question 22

What did a study into propositional reasoning and comprehension find?

Answer 22

Many people misunderstand the rule, but reason consistently after that
(Gebauer & Laming, 1997; Wagner-Egger, 2007)

Question 23

How might mental models explain difficulties with propositional reasoning?

Answer 23

can be applied to propositional reasoning in the same way that it can be applied to syllogisms

Question 24

How might framing and experience explain difficulties with propositional reasoning?

Answer 24

framing and experience shape people’s responses in propositional reasoning tasks, and these effects illuminate the underlying mental processes.

Question 25

What did a study into framing and experience and propositional reasoning find?

Answer 25

Abstract version: 0% chose p, not-q
Underage drinking version: 73% choose p, not-q

Question 26

What deontic reasoning?

Answer 26

Cuing of relevant prior experiences

Question 27

What is cheater detection?

Answer 27

Evolved “cheater detection” algorithm –> capacity to detect people who are breaking rules

Question 28

What is relevance and utility?

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

How does relevance and utility bring together multiple trains of thought?

Answer 29

• Matching heuristic: Items mentioned in rule seem relevant
• “Cheater detection”: High utility to finding took-benefit-didn’t-pay

Question 30

What did a study into relevance and utility find?

Answer 30

• people correctly identify to correct p and not-q cards that they need to turn over
• when the context of the question is changed, people no longer answer the task correctly –> motivation for why you are checking the cards has changed and so therefore the relevance of the question to you has also changed

Question 31

Are selection tasks good for studying reasoning?

Answer 31

no as the results largely vary depending on the context in which they are presented