The mental model theory of conditional reasoning presented by P. N. Johnson-Laird and R. M. J. Byrne (2002) has recently been the subject of criticisms (e.g., J. St. B. T. Evans, D. E. Over, & S. J. Handley, 2005). The authors argue that the theoretical conflict can be resolved by differentiating 2 kinds of reasoning, reasoning about possibilities given the truth of assertions and reasoning about the truth of assertions given possibilities. The standard mental model theory accounts for the former kind of reasoning but does not adequately account for the latter, contrary to the suppositional approach favored by J. St. B. T. Evans et al. (2005). The authors thus propose a modified mental model theory of conditionals that reconciles the 2 theoretical approaches. It is demonstrated that this theory is able to explain the key findings that have been opposed to the standard theory by J. St. B. T. Evans et al. and makes new predictions that are empirically verified.

a b s t r a c tThis article presents a developmental dual-process theory of the understanding of conditionals that integrates Evans' heuristic-analytic theory within the revised mental model theory of conditional proposed by Barrouillet, Gauffroy, and Lecas (2008). According to this theory, the interpretation of a conditional sentence is driven by unconscious and implicit heuristic processes that provide individuals with an initial representation that captures its meaning by representing the cases that make it true. This initial model can be enriched with additional models (a process named fleshing out within the mental model theory) through the intervention of conscious and demanding analytic processes. Being optional, these processes construct representations of cases that are only compatible with the conditional, leaving its truth-value indeterminate when they occur. Because heuristic processes are relatively immune to developmental changes, while analytic processes strongly develop with age, the initial model remains stable through development whereas the number of additional models that can be constructed increases steadily. Thus, the dual-process mental model theory predicts in which cases conditionals will be deemed true, indeterminate, or false and how these cases evolve with age. These predictions were verified in children, adolescents and adults who were asked to evaluate the truth value and the probability of several types of conditionals. The results reveal a variety of developmental trajectories in the way different conditionals are interpreted, which can all be accounted for by our revised mental model theory.

One of the main tenets of the mental model theory is that when individuals reason, they think about possibilities. According to this theory, reasoning on what is possible from the truth of a sentence would be psychologically basic, whereas reasoning the other way round, on the truth or falsity of a sentence from a given state of affairs, would require some meta-ability. The present study tested the developmental corollary of this theory, which is that reasoning about possibilities should develop first, whereas the development of reasoning about truth-value should be delayed. For this purpose, 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders as well as adults were presented with tasks requiring them to evaluate either the possibilities compatible with conditional sentences or the truth-value of these sentences from these same possibilities. The results revealed 2 phenomena. First, the same developmental trend was observed in both tasks with 3 successive interpretational levels: conjunctive, biconditional, and then conditional. Second, there was a developmental lag between the 2 forms of reasoning--with developmental transitions from one level to the next occurring about 3 years later when reasoning about truth-value. The implications of these results for theories of cognitive development and of reasoning are discussed.

a b s t r a c tProbabilistic theories have been claimed to constitute a new paradigm for the psychology of reasoning. A key assumption of these theories is captured by what they call the Equation, the hypothesis that the meaning of the conditional is probabilistic in nature and that the probability of If p then q is the conditional probability, in such a way that P(if p then q) = P(q|p). Using the probabilistic truth-table task in which participants are required to evaluate the probability of If p then q sentences, the present study explored the pervasiveness of the Equation through ages (from early adolescence to adulthood), types of conditionals (basic, causal, and inducements) and contents. The results reveal that the Equation is a late developmental achievement only endorsed by a narrow majority of educated adults for certain types of conditionals depending on the content they involve. Agerelated changes in evaluating the probability of all the conditionals studied closely mirror the development of truth-value judgements observed in previous studies with traditional truth-table tasks. We argue that our modified mental model theory can account for this development, and hence for the findings related with the probability task, which do not consequently support the probabilistic approach of human reasoning over alternative theories.

No abstract