Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them

The mental model theory of reasoning postulates that individuals construct mental models of the possibilities in which the premises of an inference hold and that these models represent what is true but not what is false. An unexpected consequence of this assumption is that certain premises should yield systematically invalid inferences. This prediction is unique among current theories of reasoning, because no alternative theory, whether based on formal rules of inference or on probabilistic considerations, predicts these illusory inferences. We report three studies of novel illusory inferences that depend on embedded disjunctions—for example, premises of this sort: A or else (B or else C). The theory distinguishes between those embedded disjunctions that should yield illusions and those that should not. In Experiment 1, we corroborated this distinction. In Experiment 2, we extended the illusory inferences to a more stringently controlled set of problems. In Experiment 3, we established a novel method for reducing illusions by calling for participants to make auxiliary inferences.

[1]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Deductive competence: A desert devoid of content and context , 1997 .

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

[3]  K. Jon Barwise,et al.  The situation in logic , 1989, CSLI lecture notes series.

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

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

[6]  N. Chater,et al.  The probabilistic approach to human reasoning , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Allen Newell,et al.  Deduction as verbal reasoning. , 1995 .

[8]  John Tooby,et al.  Detecting cheaters , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  Kenneth Gilhooly,et al.  ‘Atmosphere’, matching, and logic in syllogistic reasoning , 1995 .

[10]  Keith Stenning,et al.  Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science , 2008 .

[11]  The negated conditional: a litmus test for the suppositional conditional? , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[13]  P. N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  How to eliminate illusions in quantified reasoning , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Graeme S. Halford,et al.  Measuring the Influence of Complexity on Relational Reasoning , 2006 .

[15]  Lance J. Rips Goals for a Theory of Deduction: Reply to Johnson-Laird , 2004, Minds and Machines.

[16]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Illusory inferences: a novel class of erroneous deductions , 1999, Cognition.

[17]  P N Johnson-Laird,et al.  Reasoning about relations. , 2005, Psychological review.

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

[19]  Geoffrey P. Goodwin,et al.  The psychological puzzle of Sudoku , 2008 .

[20]  R. Jeffrey Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits , 1981 .

[21]  S. Phillips,et al.  Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. , 1998, The Behavioral and brain sciences.