When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems

When is a conclusion worth deriving? We claim that a conclusion is worth deriving to the extent that it is relevant in the sense of relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). To support this hypothesis, we experiment with “indeterminate relational problems” where we ask participants what, if anything, follows from premises such as A is taller than B, A is taller than C. With such problems, the indeterminate response that nothing follows is common, and we explain why. We distinguish several types of determinate conclusions and show that their rate is a function of their relevance. We argue that by appropriately changing the formulation of the premises, the relevance of determinate conclusions can be increased, and the rate of indeterminate responses thereby reduced. We contrast these relevance-based predictions with predictions based on linguistic congruence.

[1]  I. Hunter,et al.  The solving of three-term series problems. , 1957, British journal of psychology.

[2]  Dorothy Wheeler,et al.  STUDIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF REASONING IN SCHOOL CHILDREN , 1958 .

[3]  S. Handel,et al.  Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  Janellen Huttenlocher,et al.  Constructing spatial images: A strategy in reasoning. , 1968 .

[5]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Influence of language on solving three-term series problems. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. , 1969 .

[7]  G. R. Potts Information Processing Strategies Used in the Encoding of Linear Orderings. , 1972 .

[8]  G. R. Potts,et al.  The internal representation of a three-term series problem , 1975 .

[9]  B. Fellows,et al.  'Perceptual' strategies in the solving of three term series problems. , 1975 .

[10]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  Plasticity in memorial networks , 1975 .

[11]  Shannon Dawn Moeser,et al.  Learning a network of comparisons. , 1977 .

[12]  Susan A. Warner,et al.  Processing partially ordered information. , 1980 .

[13]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  The mental representation of spatial descriptions , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Stephen E. Newstead,et al.  The role of imagery in the representation of linear orderings , 1982 .

[15]  Robert H. Ennis The Psychology of Deduction , 1983 .

[16]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1997 .

[17]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[18]  Ira A. Noveck,et al.  Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? , 1991 .

[19]  A. Avramides Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

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

[21]  D. Hilton THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF REASONING : CONVERSATIONAL INFERENCE AND RATIONAL JUDGMENT , 1995 .

[22]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. , 1995 .

[23]  Leonard Goddard,et al.  Relevance and reasoning , 1995 .

[24]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance theory explains the selection task , 1995, Cognition.

[25]  M. Carreiras,et al.  Reasoning about relations: Spatial and nonspatial problems , 1997 .

[26]  J. van der Henst The mental model theory of spatial reasoning re-examined: the role of relevance in premise order. , 1999, British journal of psychology.

[27]  Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst The mental model theory of spatial reasoning re‐examined: The role of relevance in premise order , 1999 .

[28]  Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst Mental model theory and pragmatics , 2000 .

[29]  Valerie A. Thompson,et al.  The task-specific nature of domain-general reasoning , 2000, Cognition.

[30]  Laura Macchi,et al.  Reasoning and pragmatics , 2000 .

[31]  M. Roberts Strategies in relational inference , 2000 .

[32]  I. Noveck When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature , 2001, Cognition.

[33]  Rocky Ross,et al.  Mental models , 2004, SIGA.