2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A simple syllogism-solving test: Empirical findings and implications for g research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Following Monti and Osherson, one could, however, argue, that the ability to solve syllogisms is a form of nonverbal intelligence. As a case in point, Shikishima, et al ( 2011 ) suggested a strong association between syllogistic reasoning ability and general intelligence (g). We controlled for this by taking a nonverbal measure of intelligence (nonverbal reasoning) as covariate in our design.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following Monti and Osherson, one could, however, argue, that the ability to solve syllogisms is a form of nonverbal intelligence. As a case in point, Shikishima, et al ( 2011 ) suggested a strong association between syllogistic reasoning ability and general intelligence (g). We controlled for this by taking a nonverbal measure of intelligence (nonverbal reasoning) as covariate in our design.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore genetic and environmental influences were consistent across the three separate performance classes, yielding a significant genetic correlation and a high degree of heritability for the latent 'g' construct. In a subsequent study (Shikishima et al 2011), syllogistic reasoning ability was observed to have similar characteristics as other indicators of intelligence, exhibiting a similar developmental trajectory, as well as exhibiting the usual relationship with socio-economic status. Furthermore, syllogistic reasoning was genetically correlated with aspects of scholastic achievement.…”
Section: Background Datamentioning
confidence: 72%
“…First, we tested whether WMC would directly predict L1 syllogistic inferencing ability (e.g., Bara et al, 1995;Oakhill & Garnham, 1993), L2 linguistic knowledge (e.g., Williams, 2012), and L2 listening comprehension (e.g., Kormos & Sáfár, 2008) because solving cognitive and linguistic problems, including syllogistic, linguistic, and listening comprehension problems, generally requires working memory resources to process and store the given input (Linck et al, 2014). In addition, WMC tends to start developing earlier than syllogistic inferencing ability and L2 processing, such that WMC increases from 4 to 14-15 years (Gathercole et al, 2004), while syllogistic inferencing ability tends to start developing during around adolescence (Shikishima et al, 2011) and there is no specific starting point for developing L2 processing. Thus, it would be appropriate to assume predictive paths from WMC to syllogistic inferencing ability and L2 processing, although we do not exclude the potential of bidirectional influences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%