Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content

Markovits, Henry; Doyon, Celine; Simoneau, Michael

doi:10.1080/13546780143000143

Cited by 52 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, Rips (2004aRips ( , 2004b obtained results, which confirmed the predictions of the rule theory, when subjects were asked to judge the correctness of conclusions presented to them. Markovits, Doyon, and Simoneau (2002) verified predictions of the mental models theory, based on a detailed analysis of relations between reasoning and individual differences in visual and verbal working memory. In the abstract rules theory, there is practically no need to refer to visual working memory (i.e., to involve visuospatial sketch-pad), even if a task's content is imaginary-spatial.…”

Section: Working Memory Capacity and Deductive Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 81%

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Chuderski

Nęcka²

2010

Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Working Memory Capacity and Deductive Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 81%

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Chuderski

Nęcka²

2010

Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We chose to use a verb-object labeling style as this is the most frequently suggested naming convention (Leopold et al, 2013). Abstract labels might limit the generalizability because research revealed that material with abstract labels has a slightly different effect on human reasoning than material with content labels (Beller and Spada, 2003;Markovits et al, 2002), which also eases model comprehension .…”

Section: Choice Of Process Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence factors for local comprehensibility of process models

Figl¹,

Laue²

2015

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Current approaches to individual differences in belief-bias effects concentrate on working memory as a key factor (e.g., De Neys et al, 2005). However, working memory does not relate to responding to MP inferences (e.g., Markovits, Doyon, & Simoneau, 2002), which suggests that additional factors might be important to understanding these individual differences.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Instructions on Reasoning with Stereotypical Premises

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined conditional reasoning with premises referring to associations between professions and traits that were either stereotypical ("Accountants like mathematics") or counter-stereotypical ("Nurses like mathematics"). In the first study, participants were asked to rate the degree of certainty of MP and AC inferences based on an individual's profession ("John is an accountant") or based on an individual trait ("John likes mathematics"), under pragmatic instructions or under strong logical instructions, using a context that required them to put themselves in the position of a fictitious actor. Results showed that both forms of inference were rated as more certain with stereotypical premises than with counter-stereotypical premises and that logical instructions increased the overall strength of inferences without reducing the difference between the two forms of premise. The second study presented both stereotypical premises and inferences with believable and unbelievable conclusions, with no additional context. Participants were given inferences under pragmatic instructions followed by logical instructions, or only under logical instructions. Results show that ratings for both MP and AC inferences were higher for stereotypical than counter-stereotypical items, with a similar difference for inferences with belief-consistent and beliefinconsistent conclusions. Logical instructions clearly reduce the influence of premise type, on both types of problems. Receiving pragmatic instructions initially reduced overall levels of normative responding for stereotypical, but not for classical belief-bias inferences. Individual differences in responding indicate that the debiasing effect of logical instructions depends on initial level of bias shown under pragmatic instructions. The results are interpreted as supporting dual-process theories of reasoning.Logical reasoning involves making deductions on the basis of some given premises that are considered to be true. Logical reasoning is, at least in theory, decontextualized, and thus involves the ability to disregard the specific content of premises when generating a conclusion. However, studies examining reasoning have consistently found that people are influenced by -----Cécile Saelen and Henry Markovits are affiliated to the Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada, Olivier Klein is affiliated to the Université Libre de Bruxelles.

show abstract

Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content

Cited by 52 publications

References 17 publications

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Influence factors for local comprehensibility of process models

The Effects of Instructions on Reasoning with Stereotypical Premises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About