Coordinated Reasoning (original) (raw)
Related papers
Prior Affirmative Representation Facilitates the Cognitive Processing of Compound Negation
A mixed factorial design of 2x2x2 was applied (sequence x law x affirmation) to evaluate the effects of prior affirmative representation on the subsequent processing of compound negation. The sequence factor was defined to perform between-subjects comparisons. The other two factors, that is, logic law and prior affirmation were defined as within-subjects factors. The sequence factor was included to evaluate potential artifacts generated by the experimental design. Statistical analyses showed the absence of such artifacts. Three dependent variables were included: response type, an indirect measure of introspection quality, and a direct measure of subjective difficulty. A random sample of 130 participants were recruited for this experiment. All the participants were undergraduate students at the National University of Entre Rios, Argentina. 112 were female (86.2%). The mean age was 23.79 years old (SD = 6.452). 2 sets of 6 exercises each were given to all the participants. The classical selection paradigm was applied, that is, four response options were given in each item. Only one of them was the normative response according to logic (DeMorgan's equivalences for negated conjunctions and negated disjunctions). One set included prior relevant affirmation before requiring negation, the other set started straightforward with the negation task. The task was to find the logical meaning of such compound negation that operated on a conjunction or a disjunction. By the other side, the set of exercises without prior affirmation asked straightforward to find the equivalence for a given compound negation of a conjunction or a disjunction. After completing each set of 6 responses participants were asked to give an opinion about their own performance (introspection quality) and about the task difficulty (subjective difficulty). In consistence with the mental models theory and the relevance theory, prior affirmation increased the frequency of normative responses and the quality of introspection. However, a direct registry of task difficulty showed no difference between a prior affirmation condition and a straightforward condition in consistence with the Gricean view of negation. An unexpected result showed an incremental effect of normative responses for the negation of conjunctions in comparison with the negation of disjunctions when prior affirmation provided a pragmatically enriched context. These results are discussed in terms of working memory dynamics. In sum, our findings suggest that the processing of compound negation of conjunctions and disjunctions can be explained as a combination of explicit and implicit processes that are strongly influenced by pragmatic factors.
Laws of language use and formal logic
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1986
After a review of recent work connected with Grice's maxims of conversation, special attention is paid to the principles related to the concept of informativeness. The operation of those principles constrains logic by limiting the meaning of logical particles and, more importantly, by ...
Propositional reasoning by model
Psychological Review, 1992
This article describes a new theory of prepositional reasoning, that is, deductions depending on;/ or, and, and not. The theory proposes that reasoning is a semantic process based on mental models. It assumes that people are able to maintain models of only a limited number of alternative states of affairs, and they accordingly use models representing as much information as possible in an implicit way. They represent a disjunctive proposition, such as "There is a circle or there is a triangle," by imagining initially 2 alternative possibilities: one in which there is a circle and the other in which there is a triangle. This representation can, if necessary, be fleshed out to yield an explicit representation of an exclusive or an inclusive disjunction. The theory elucidates all the robust phenomena of propositional reasoning. It also makes several novel predictions, which were corroborated by the results of 4 experiments.
Chronometrical evidence supports the model theory of negation
We aimed to study how compound negation of conjunctions and disjunctions is understood and represented. In particular, we aimed to test time course predictions consistent with the Mental Models Theory of negation proposed in 2012 by Khemlani, Orenes, and Johnson-Laird. Consistent with this theory, we conjectured that the consideration of possibilities elicited by any given information regulates the processing of compound negation. We studied response type patterns to replicate previous findings as well as response time patterns to generate novel chronometrical evidence. We conducted a within-subjects experiment to test a set of five experimental hypotheses. We used a sentence-equivalence task. Participants were asked to find a logical equivalence for a given compound negation of a conjunction or a disjunction. Four possible response options were presented, but only one of them was correct according to sentential logic. We also tested predictions derived from theories that argue against the Mental Models Theory. The evidence resulted consistent with the model theory of negation and incompatible with alternative accounts. In particular, our results did not support the Psychology of Proof and the Dual-Process approach to negation.
Understanding/acceptance and adaptation: Is the non-normative thinking mode adaptive?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2000
Much research in the last two decades has demonstrated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision making and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be interpreted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experimenter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the modal response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implications of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative /descriptive gap. Performance errors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations underlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Unexpected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate.
Poznań Reasoning Week 2016, 2016
The majority rule and the equate-to-differentiate rule are two contradictory, albeit similarly structured judgmental heuristics. The present paper proposed the fol- lowing theoretical deduction on the moderation role of self-construals, regulatory focus, and culture differences which affects decision makers to use the alternative rules when choosing between weak dominant pairwise options: Increasing the ac- cessibility of the interdependent self-construal or of the information with a preven- tion focus or of intra-national culture identification causes individuals to be likely to use the majority rule, whereas increasing the accessibility of the independent self-construal or of the information with a promotion focus or of inter-national cul- ture identification causes individuals to be likely to use the equate-to-differentiate rule.
Assertibility and Coordination (PhD Thesis)
This thesis explores how far classical logic, combined with formal restrictions that model some Grice-inspired maxims, can go towards describing the multiple distinct uses of the English natural language connectives 'and' and 'or'. H.P. Grice famously claimed that 'and' and 'if' could be completely reduced to the truth-functional connectives '∧' and '⊃' plus his maxims, so this thesis partakes somewhat of the spirit of his project. However, it is neither Gricean nor neo-Gricean, as conversational implicature is ignored in favour of an appeal to formal and general predictions that can be drawn by an ideal rational cooperative Hearer. This allows the development of formal propositional systems based on norms inspired by Grice's cooperative principle and subsequent maxims. These formal systems seek to capture assertibility, and require some new approaches to logical semantics that are interesting in their own right. Many types of pragmatic phenomena can be described in terms of which minor deviations are required to the utterance form to meet the assertibility criteria. Many of these deviations can be described precisely by formalising additional maxims or borrowing some concepts from cognitive linguistics and formal syntax. Some of the functional-typological distinctions within each of the coordinations 'or', 'and', and 'but' will be compared to a list of predictions produced by assertibility considerations. The principles behind propositional assertibility are then applied to predicate logic, negation, and speech acts such as interrogatives and arguments with some interesting results. An approach to conditionals ('if' clauses) and related subordinating conjunctions such as 'when' and 'since' is sketched based on linguistic classifications and assertibility considerations. The assertibility conditions for disjunction also suggest an analysis of the so-called paradox of Free Choice that suggests it is both far more pervasive and simple than previously believed. Finally, the results of this exploration are tallied, along with some puzzles, surprising parallels, and thoughts for further research.