Encoding time and signs exposure time in the representation of diagrammatic deontic meanings.

It has been proposed that prohibition and obligation be represented in different ways in reasoning with deontic information (Bucciarelli & Johnson-Laird, 2005). Obligations are salient in permissible situations and prohibitions in impermissible situations. In some specific cases, differential initial representations are also consistently predicted from the comprehension of negations, if prohibition is considered as the negation of an obligation. Three experiments evaluate whether traffic signs of prohibition and obligation speed up the response time to the proposed direction represented and whether this advantage remains when people have more time to think. When making judgements about the manoeuvre performed by a vehicle, participants' response times are consistent with the predicted representation when they have a short time (i.e., 300ms) to understand the premise. In this case they represent what is permissible by obligatory signs and also what is impermissible by prohibitory signs. However, if they have more time (i.e., 1000 ms) to understand the premise, they still represent what is permissible by obligatory signs but they seem to change their initial representations to what is permissible by prohibitory signs.

[1]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[2]  Markus Knauff,et al.  How our brains reason logically , 2007 .

[3]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Experiential simulations of negated text information , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Advances in psycholinguistics , 1970 .

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

[6]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Reasoning, Models, and Images: Behavioral Measures and Cortical Activity , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  Sergio Moreno-Ríos,et al.  Priming in deduction: A spatial arrangement task , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[8]  Maxwell Lay,et al.  Design of Traffic Signs , 2004 .

[9]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Visual imagery can impede reasoning , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Vinod Goel,et al.  Anatomy of deductive reasoning , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Jonathan Evans.  Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article HOW DIAGRAMS CAN IMPROVE REASONING , 2022 .

[13]  Markus Knauff,et al.  A Neuro-Cognitive Theory of Deductive Relational Reasoning with Mental Models and Visual Images , 2009, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[14]  S. Sloman.  The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[15]  Herbert L. Colston,et al.  Figurative language comprehension : social and cultural influences , 2004 .

[16]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Naïve deontics: A theory of meaning, representation, and reasoning , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Francisco Tornay,et al.  Mental representations of obligatory and prohibitory traffic signs. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[18]  G. d'Ydewalle,et al.  The processing of negations in conditional reasoning: A meta-analytic case study in mental model and/or mental logic theory , 2001 .

[19]  R. Pigeau,et al.  The mental representation and processes of spatial deductive reasoning with diagrams and sentences , 2001 .

[20]  Christoph Schlieder,et al.  The Psychological Validity of Qualitative Spatial Reasoning in One Dimension , 2004, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[21]  P. Barrouillet,et al.  How can mental models theory account for content effects in conditional reasoning? A developmental perspective , 1998, Cognition.

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

[23]  Uri Hasson,et al.  Does understanding negation entail affirmation?: An examination of negated metaphors , 2006 .

[24]  P. C. Wason,et al.  The Processing of Positive and Negative Information , 1959 .

[25]  Tim Horberry,et al.  The human factors of transport signs , 2004 .

[26]  D. Cummins,et al.  Evidence of deontic reasoning in 3- and 4-year-old children , 1996, Memory & cognition.

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

[28]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[29]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. , 1975 .

[30]  Richard A. Griggs,et al.  The elusive thematic‐materials effect in Wason's selection task , 1982 .

[31]  John Clibbens,et al.  The Role of Implicit and Explicit Negation in Conditional Reasoning Bias , 1996 .

[32]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin , 2004 .

[33]  P. Johnson-Laird.  How We Reason , 2006 .

[34]  L. Rips.  The Psychology of Proof: Deductive Reasoning in Human Thinking , 1994 .

[35]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2005 .

[36]  P. Johnson-Laird.  Mental models and deduction , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Drawing inferences from the presuppositions and implications of affirmative and negative sentences , 1973 .

[38]  S. Sloman.  Two systems of reasoning. , 2002 .

[39]  P. Wason,et al.  Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. , 1961, British journal of psychology.

[40]  Don Steinberg,et al.  Deductive reasoning , 1989 .

[41]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Higher level language processes in the brain : inference and comprehension processes , 2007 .

[42]  M. Oaksford,et al.  Reasoning with conditionals containing negated constituents. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.