No abstract

MorePower 6.0 is a flexible freeware statistical calculator that computes sample size, effect size, and power statistics for factorial ANOVA designs. It also calculates relational confidence intervals for ANOVA effects based on formulas from Jarmasz and Hollands (Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 63:124-138, 2009), as well as Bayesian posterior probabilities for the null and alternative hypotheses based on formulas in Masson (Behavior Research Methods 43:679-690, 2011). The program is unique in affording direct comparison of these three approaches to the interpretation of ANOVA tests. Its high numerical precision and ability to work with complex ANOVA designs could facilitate researchers' attention to issues of statistical power, Bayesian analysis, and the use of confidence intervals for data interpretation. MorePower 6.0 is available at https://wiki.usask.ca/ pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId0420413544.

No abstract

This chapter develops a framework for predicting S2 intervention that is based on metacognitive experiences associated with S1 processes. In particular, it develops the argument that the outcome of a given reasoning attempt is determined not only by the content of the information which is retrieved by S1 and analysed by S2, but also by a second-order judgement. This metacognitive judgement is largely based on the experience associated with the execution of S1 and S2 processes, and it is this judgement that determines whether, and how, S2 processes are engaged.

Two experiments examined the role of necessity and sufficiency relationships in conditional reasoning. The results indicated that perceived necessity and sufficiency predicted variability in reasoning performance for four pragmatic relations (permission, obligation, causation, and definition), for both determinant and indeterminant syntactic forms, and for both a conditional arguments and a truth table evaluation task, as well as when the temporal relationship between the antecedent and consequent events was reversed. These data support the general utility of perceived necessity and sufficiency in the interpretation and evaluation of conditional relationships. However, the effects of necessity and sufficiency were smaller for reversed than for forward statements, which suggests that necessity/sufficiency-based interpretations may be more useful for evaluating some types of conditional relations than others. In addition, people were more likely to accept valid rather than invalid arguments, regardless of necessity/sufficiency relations, a finding that suggests that abstract, content-free representations may play a functional role in conditional reasoning.