Negations in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a heuristic–analytic conflict

An experiment utilizing response time measures was conducted to test dominant processing strategies in syllogistic reasoning with the expanded quantifier set proposed by Roberts (2005). Through adding negations to existing quantifiers it is possible to change problem surface features without altering logical validity. Biases based on surface features such as atmosphere, matching, and the probability heuristics model (PHM; Chater & Oaksford, 1999; Wetherick & Gilhooly, 1995) would not be expected to show variance in response latencies, but participant responses should be highly sensitive to changes in the surface features of the quantifiers. In contrast, according to analytic accounts such as mental models theory and mental logic (e.g., Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991; Rips, 1994) participants should exhibit increased response times for negated premises, but not be overly impacted upon by the surface features of the conclusion. Data indicated that the dominant response strategy was based on a matching heuristic, but also provided evidence of a resource-demanding analytic procedure for dealing with double negatives. The authors propose that dual-process theories offer a stronger account of these data whereby participants employ competing heuristic and analytic strategies and fall back on a heuristic response when analytic processing fails

An explanation of or-deletions and other paradoxical disjunctive inferences

Some inferences of the sort: A or B; therefore A, which are invalid in standard logics, are sensible in life: You can enter now or later; therefore, you can enter now. That these "or-deletions" follow necessarily or only possibly is a by-product of a theory of mental models. Its semantics for "or" refers to conjunctions of possibilities holding in default of knowledge to the contrary. It predicts new sorts of or-deletion, such as: He likes to drink red wine or white wine. So, he likes to drink red wine. and: You are permitted to do only one of the following: You can enter now. You can enter later. Therefore, you are permitted to enter now. They are invalid in standard logics, and neither previous pragmatic nor semantic theories predicted them. Four experiments corroborated their occurrence.Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia - FCTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Kinematic mental simulations in abduction and deduction

We present a theory, and its computer implementation, of how mental simulations underlie the abductions of informal algorithms and deductions from these algorithms. Three experiments tested the theory’s predictions, using an environment of a single railway track and a siding. This environment is akin to a universal Turing machine, but it is simple enough for nonprogrammers to use. Participants solved problems that required use of the siding to rearrange the order of cars in a train (experiment 1). Participants abduced and described in their own words algorithms that solved such problems for trains of any length, and, as the use of simulation predicts, they favored “while-loops” over “for-loops” in their descriptions (experiment 2). Given descriptions of loops of procedures, participants deduced the consequences for given trains of six cars, doing so without access to the railway environment (experiment 3). As the theory predicts, difficulty in rearranging trains depends on the numbers of moves and cars to be moved, whereas in formulating an algorithm and deducing its consequences, it depends on the Kolmogorov complexity of the algorithm. Overall, the results corroborated the use of a kinematic mental model in creating and testing informal algorithms and showed that individuals differ reliably in the ability to carry out these tasks