Two models of syllogistic reasoning: Feature selection and conversion

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

Oakhill

Bull

1986

Most theories of the development of deductive ability propose that children acquire formal rules of inference. An alternative theory assumes that reasoning consists of constructing a mental model of the situation described in the premises, scanning the model for an informative conclusion, and then searching for alternative models that refute this conclusion. Hence, performance should reflect two principal factors: the difficulty of constructing a model, which depends on the “figure” of the premises, and the number of models that have to be evaluated to respond correctly. In Experiment 1, two groups of children (9- to 10- and 11- to 12-year-olds) drew conclusions from 20 pairs of syllogistic premises. The results confirmed that children are affected both by figure and by number of models. Experiment 2 corroborated these findings for all 64 possible forms of syllogistic premises. The development of reasoning ability may therefore depend on the acquisition, not of formal rules of logic, but of procedures for manipulating models.

“…Our data fail to substantiate the thesis that reasoners as a matter of course convert all premises or are universally subject to "atmosphere" effects (see Revlis, 1975).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

Children'S Syllogistic Reasoning

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

Oakhill

Bull

1986

“…Because the effect is stronger for valid conclusions, Woodworth and Sells (1935) argued for an independent inferential mechanism. Revlis (1975) developed the atmosphere hypothesis into a model in which errors can occur in working out the joint atmosphere of the two premises. The model postulates that participants will reject a putative conclusion if it does not fit the atmosphere of the premises.…”

Section: Heuristic Theories Of Syllogistic Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theories of the syllogism: A meta-analysis.

Khemlani

2012

Psychological Bulletin

151

161

Syllogisms are arguments about the properties of entities. They consist of 2 premises and a conclusion, which can each be in 1 of 4 “moods”: All A are B, Some A are B, No A are B, and Some A are not B. Their logical analysis began with Aristotle, and their psychological investigation began over 100 years ago. This article outlines the logic of inferences about syllogisms, which includes the evaluation of the consistency of sets of assertions. It also describes the main phenomena of reasoning about properties. There are 12 extant theories of such inferences, and the article outlines each of them and describes their strengths and weaknesses. The theories are of 3 main sorts: heuristic theories that capture principles that could underlie intuitive responses, theories of deliberative reasoning based on formal rules of inference akin to those of logic, and theories of deliberative reasoning based on set-theoretic diagrams or models. The article presents a meta-analysis of these extant theories of syllogisms using data from 6 studies. None of the 12 theories provides an adequate account, and so the article concludes with a guide—based on its qualitative and quantitative analyses—of how best to make progress toward a satisfactory theory.

“…Early psychological studies of syllogisms were concerned with the factors that lead reasoners astray, the atmosphere of the premises (e.g., Woodworth & Sells, 1935), the illicit conversion of premises (e.g., Chapman & Chapman, 1959), and the adverse effects of beliefs and prejudices (e.g., Henle & Michael, 1956). Twenty years ago, however, psychologists proposed the first theories of how reasoners might reach valid conclusions (e.g., Erickson, 1974;Johnson-Laird, 1975;Revlis, 1975). Since then, there has been a plethora of theories, some based on Euler circles (Fisher, 1981;Ford, 1995;Stenning & Oberlander, 1995); some based on Venn diagrams (Guyote & Sternberg, 1981;Newell, 1981); some based on mental models (Cardaci, Gangemi, Pendolino, & Di Nuovo, 1996;Johnson-Laird & Bara, 1984;Polk & Newell, 1995); some based on formal rules of inference (Braine & Rumain, 1983;Rips, 1994); and some based on the idea that individuals are not reasoning, but are following the atmosphere of the premises (Wetherick & Gilhooly, 1990;Martin Levine, personal communication, 1994) or selecting a conclusion that matches the mood of the least informative premise (Chater & Oaksford, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies in Syllogistic Reasoning

Bucciarelli¹,

1999

Cognitive Science

128

This paper is about syllogistic reasoning, i.e., reasoning from such pairs of premises as, All the chefs are musicians; some of the musicians are painters. We present a computer model that implements the latest account of syllogisms, which is based on the theory of mental models. We also report four experiments that were designed to test this account. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the strategies revealed by the participants' use of paper and pencil as aids to reasoning. Experiment 3 used a new technique to externalize thinking. The participants had to refute, if possible, putative conclusions by constructing external models that were examples of the premises but counterexamples of the conclusions. Experiment 4 used the same techniques to examine the participants' strategies as they drew their own conclusions from syllogistic premises. The results of the experiments showed that individuals not trained in logic can construct counterexamples, that they use similar operations to those implemented in the computer model, but that they rely on a much greater variety of interpretations of premises and of search strategies than the computer model does. We re-evaluates current theories of syllogistic reasoning in the light of these results.