Reviews the current literature on different types of reasoning, showing little integration across different studies and very little explicit discussion regarding the nature of reasoning. Moreover, most recent theoretical work on deductive and inductive reasoning does not make any explicit connection to everyday reasoning. Major programmatic approaches to the study of reasoning are classified into three types: the componential approach, the rules/heuristics approach, and the mental models/ search approach. Strengths and shortcomings of each are reviewed. It is concluded that each approach can potentially play an important role in describing one or more aspects of everyday reasoning. In terms of direct extendability to the description, study, and improvement of everyday reasoning, the mental models/search approach is argued to be the most useful, especially when it incorporates a generalized version of the rules/heuristics approach.The study of thinking and reasoning has expanded and intensified in the past two decades. The emergence of the fields of cognitive science and artificial intelligence have reawakened interest in the problem of describing, in a useful and testable way, what makes for "good," "critical," "reflective," and "productive" thinking (Dewey, 1933; Wertheirner, 1945). Programs and studies to assess and improve critical thinking are currently underway in a number of educational contexts (Baron, 1985;

No abstract

Elementary school children's moral reasoning concerning physical and relational aggression was explored. Fourth and fifth graders rated physical aggression as more wrong and harmful than relational aggression but tended to adopt a moral orientation about both forms of aggression. Gender differences in moral judgments of aggression were observed, with girls rating physical and relational aggression as more wrong and relational aggression as more harmful than boys. In addition, girls were more likely to adopt a moral orientation when judging physical and relational aggression and girls more often judged relational aggression than physical aggression from the moral domain. Finally, moral reasoning about aggression was associated with physically and relationally aggressive behavior. Considered together, the results indicate that children tend to adopt a moral orientation about aggression, but that they nonetheless differentiate between physical and relational aggression in their moral judgments.

College students were surveyed in their 1st year and again 1 year later about their decision regarding which major to declare. They listed criteria and alternatives under consideration, rated the importance of each, and gave overall impressions of each alternative. They also rated their affective responses to the decision-making process. Students listed approximately 7 criteria and 4 alternatives during their 1st year and approximately 7 criteria and 3 alternatives during their 2nd year. Only about half of the criteria and alternatives originally listed appeared the second time. Students' overall impressions correlated with predictions of linear models of decision making. However, confidence and comfort with the decision-making process were not correlated with measures of rational decision making, suggesting that students may have maladaptive expectations about what effective real-life decision making should be.I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Kathryn Ainsworth, Beth Lavin, and Karen Jacobs in the data collection and analysis

No abstract