A reexamination of the interpretations of errors in formal syllogistic reasoning

Roberge, James J.

doi:10.3758/bf03328843

Cited by 15 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the mean percentage correct for the first subgroup of premise combinations is 33.4%, for the second subgroup, 23.7%, and for the IE syllogisms, 19.0%. Similarly, in the data presented by Roberge (1970), the three means are 48.0%, 38.7%, and 28.3%, respectively. Finally, in a second sample collected by the present author (Dickstein, 1978), the three means are 63.8%, 49.4%, and 40.2%, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This research has repeatedly demonstrated that, although performance departs considerably from logical accuracy, it is not random. Rather, there are dominant errors for the various premise combinations that constitute the syllogistic task, and this phenomenon has been extensively replicated (e.g., Chapman & Chapman, 1959;Dickstein, 1975;Erickson, 1974;Roberge, 1970;Woodworth & Sells, 1935). This consistency has prompted the effort to identify the kinds of reasoning processes that lead to the dominant errors, and a number of different proposals have been offered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research has established that performance on the valid premise pairs is considerably better than performance on the invalid premise pairs (Dickstein, 1975(Dickstein, , 1976Roberge, 1970), and the primary challenge confronting research has been to provide an adequate explanation for the systematic erroneous performance of subjects on the invalid premise pairs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Error processes in syllogistic reasoning

Dickstein

1978

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Error processes in syllogistic reasoning

Dickstein

1978

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, Roberge (1970) has presented data for 59 syllogisms in which the percentage correct for 14 valid syllogisms was 51.2%, while the percentage correct for 45 invalid syllogisms was 35.8%. Similarly, Dickstein (1975) reported the percentage correct for all 19 possible valid syllogisms to be 72.6%, as compared to 58.2% for the 45 invalid syllogisms.…”

Section: Weuesley Couege Weuesley Massachusetts 02181mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential difficulty of categorical syllogisms

Dickstein

1976

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research with categorical syllogisms indicates that subject performance is better on valid syllogisms than on syllogisms which are indeterminate. The present study tested the hypothesis that the poorer performance on invalid syllogisms is a function of the disproportionate number of invalid syllogisms in the traditional syllogism task. Subjects may not expect so many invalid syllogisms and may be reluctant to draw so many nonpropositional conclusions. One group of subjects received the standard set of 19 valid and 45 invalid syllogisms, while a second group received a set of 35 valid and 29 invalid syllogisms. There were no significant differences between the groups on valid or invalid syllogisms, disconfirming the hypothesis. Several previous findings with categorical syllogisms were replicated.Previous resea~ch utilizing both valid and invalid categorical syllogisms has found that performance is considerably better for syllogisms which have a specific propositional conclusion than for syllogisms which are indeterminate. Thus, Roberge (1970) has presented data for 59 syllogisms in which the percentage correct for 14 valid syllogisms was 51.2%, while the percentage correct for 45 invalid syllogisms was 35.8%. Similarly, Dickstein (1975) reported the percentage correct for all 19 possible valid syllogisms to be 72.6%, as compared to 58.2% for the 45 invalid syllogisms.These data indicate that subjects are more willing to endorse specific propositions as conclusions than they are to endorse the alternative that no valid conclusion may be deduced from the premises. Revlis (1975a) has argued that subjects possess a response bias against non propositional conclusions, and he attributes this response bias to the universe of problems which constitute the traditional syllogistic reasoning task. A complete set of categorical syllogisms consists of 64 different premise combinations. Of these, only 19 yield propositional conclusions while 45 have no valid conclusion. Revlis argues that this imbalance between valid and invalid syllogisms biases the subject toward propositional conclusions because the subject does not expect so many invalid syllogisms. According to this explanation, the poorer performance on invalid syllogisms does not necessarily reflect some fundamental aspect of the reasoning process but, rather, is an artifact of the task situation.The primary purpose of the present experiment was to test the hypothesis that performance on invalid syllogisms is a function of the proportion of valid and Dr. Lyle Bourne, Jr. sponsors this paper and takes full editorial responsibility for its content. This study was conducted while the author was on sabbatical leave from Wellesley College at the Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior, University of Colorado . The research was supported by a postdoctoral research fellowship to the author from the National Institute of Mental Health (l F32 MH05214.()1) under the sponsorship of Dr. Lyle Bourne, JI. invalid syllogisms constituting the task set. If the rel...

show abstract

“…Chapman and Chapman (1959) presented data for 36 invalid syllogisms. Roberge (1970) reported data for a set of 59 valid and invalid syllogisms. Erickson (1974) presented data for 19 valid syllogisms, although in five instances, the data for 2 syllogisms were combined for presentation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The meaning of conversion in syllogistic reasoning

Dickstein

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A reexamination of the interpretations of errors in formal syllogistic reasoning

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Error processes in syllogistic reasoning

Error processes in syllogistic reasoning

Differential difficulty of categorical syllogisms

The meaning of conversion in syllogistic reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About