Context, visual salience, and inductive reasoning

An important debate in the reasoning literature concerns the extent to which inference processes are domain-free or domain-specific. Typically, evidence in support of the domain-specific position comprises the facilitation observed when abstract reasoning tasks are set in realistic context. Three experiments are reported here in which the sources of facilitation were investigated for contextualised versions of Raven's Progressive Matrices (Richardson, 1991) and non-verbal analogies from the AH4 test (Richardson & Webster, 1996). Experiment 1 confirmed that the facilitation observed for the contextualised matrices was in part due to extraneous aspects of commentaries originally intended to activate domainspecific processes. Experiments 2 and 3 indicated that the remainder of the facilitation for the matrices, and all of the facilitation for the analogies, could be explained by visual salience: Converting the item elements into realistic objects had enabled them and their transitions to be identified more easily. Hence, performance at simplified abstract items was as good as, or better than, at contextualised items. It is concluded that facilitation effects cannot be interpreted as showing that domain-specific processes constitute a self-contained system separate from domain-free processes. In turn, this means that domain-free processes cannot be dismissed as being unimportant for reasoning.

[1]  Patricia W. Cheng,et al.  Pragmatic Reasoning With a Point of View , 1995 .

[2]  Shawn L. Ward,et al.  Semantic Familiarity, Relevance, and the Development of Deductive Reasoning , 1990 .

[3]  K. Richardson REASONING WITH RAVEN — IN AND OUT OF CONTEXT , 1991 .

[4]  G. Halford Children's Understanding: The Development of Mental Models , 1993 .

[5]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Putting Raven into context: a response to Roberts & Stevenson , 1996 .

[7]  Stephen J. Ceci,et al.  The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. , 1994 .

[8]  J. Raven,et al.  Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and Mill Hill vocabulary scales , 1981 .

[9]  Maxwell J. Roberts,et al.  Reasoning with Raven : with and without help , 1996 .

[10]  L. Rips The Psychology of Proof , 1994 .

[11]  Putting context into context : a rejoinder to Richardson , 1996 .

[12]  K. Manktelow,et al.  Facilitation of reasoning by realism: Effect or non‐effect? , 1979 .

[13]  K. Richardson,et al.  Analogical reasoning and the nature of context: a research note. , 1996, The British journal of educational psychology.

[14]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Human Reasoning: The Psychology Of Deduction , 1993 .

[15]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Cognitive Ability and Variation in Selection Task Performance , 1998 .

[16]  T. McNamara Mental representations of spatial relations , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  C. Sophian Beyond competence: The significance of performance for conceptual development , 1997 .

[18]  Claudius M. Kessler,et al.  Focusing in Wason's selection task: Content and instruction effects , 1995 .

[19]  Paul Kline,et al.  Intelligence: The Psychometric View , 1990 .

[20]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Rationality and reasoning , 1996 .

[21]  M A Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1990 What one intelligence test measures : A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test , 2016 .

[22]  L. Cosmides The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task , 1989, Cognition.

[23]  C. Frith,et al.  Mapping the Mind , 1998 .

[24]  A. Gopnik The Scientist as Child , 1996, Philosophy of Science.

[25]  M. Braine,et al.  A Theory of If: A Lexical Entry, Reasoning Program, and Pragmatic Principles , 1991 .

[26]  Keith J Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatic reasoning schemas , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  Ira A. Noveck,et al.  To What Extent Do Pragmatic Reasoning Schemas Affect Performance on Wason's Selection Task? , 1996 .

[28]  A. P. White,et al.  Convergence Principles: Information in the Answer Sets of Some Multiple-Choice Intelligence Tests , 1981 .