Social reasoning and spatial paralogic.

Soto, Clinton B. De; London, Marvin; Handel, Stephen

doi:10.1037/h0022492

Cited by 264 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2 shows that these inferences were faster than the one-model determinate inferences. A possible explanation may call on the well-known end-anchor effect (De Soto et al, 1965;Potts, 1974): If one of the terms in a relation is an end anchor, inferences are faster and more accurate than comparable inferences that do not involve an end term. Since by our definition indeterminate inferences always involve the E term, which is always an end term and also the most recently presented end term, while the one-model determinate inferences only include an end term for half of the questions, the end anchor effect may be responsible for the observed deviation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental model construction in linear reasoning: Evidence for the construction of initial annotated models

Vandierendonck

Dierckx

Vooght

2004

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the mental model theory, reasoners build an initial model representing the information given in the premises. In the context of relational reasoning, the question arises as to which kind of representation is used to cope with indeterminate or multimodel problems. The present article presents an array of possible answers arising from the initial construction of complete explicit models, partial explicit models, partial implicit models, a single "isomeric" model, or a single annotated model. Predictions generated from these views are tested in two experiments that vary the problem structure and the number of models consistent with the premises. Analyses of the premise processing times, answering times and accuracy show that the annotated model yields the best fit of the data. Implications of these findings for the mental model theory as developed for relational reasoning are discussed.In linear syllogisms such as George is heavier than Tony and Tony is heavier than Jacques, people easily infer that George is heavier than Jacques. The findings collected in numerous studies substantiate the hypothesis that people solve such problems by constructing a linear array with the largest values at the top and the smallest ones at the bottom or alternatively by constructing a left-to-right array (see, e.g., De Soto, London, & Handel, 1965;Huttenlocher, 1968;Potts, 1974). The review by Evans, Newstead, and Byrne (1993, chap. 6) shows that this view yields the best summary of the findings reported in the literature. The usage of such an integrated spatial representation seems to be independent of the relational content and works both for determinate problems (as in the example above) and for indeterminate problems as, for example, in George is heavier than Jacques and George is heavier than Tony, where the relation between Jacques and Tony remains unresolved. Support for all this has been accumulated in

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental model construction in linear reasoning: Evidence for the construction of initial annotated models

Vandierendonck

Dierckx

Vooght

2004

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the conceptual dimensions, positive (Clark, 1973;Kinoshita & Peek-O'Leary, 2005;De Soto, London, & Handel, 1965), powerful (Schubert, 2005 2 ), moral (Krzeszowski, 1997) and God (Cooper & Ross, 1974) are considered +polar, whereas negative, powerless, immoral, and Devil are -polar. The main question in this meta-analysis is whether the pattern of simple effects observed over all five studies is in line with the predictions from a polarity account, or follow from an interference explanation…”

Section: Study 1: Meta-analysis Of Metaphor Congruency Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space.

Lakens¹

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

100

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that words presented on metaphor congruent locations (e.g., positive words UP on the screen and negative words DOWN on the screen) are categorized faster than words presented on metaphor incongruent stimuli (e.g., positive words DOWN and negative words UP). These findings have been explained in terms of an interference effect:The meaning associated with UP and DOWN vertical space can automatically interfere with the categorization of words with a metaphorically incongruent meaning. The current studies test an alternative explanation for the interaction between the vertical position of abstract concepts and the speed with which these stimuli are categorized. Research on polarity differences (basic asymmetries in the way dimensions are processed) predicts that +polar endpoints of dimensions (e.g., positive, moral, UP) are categorized faster than -polar endpoints of dimensions (e.g., negative, immoral, DOWN). Furthermore, the polarity correspondence principle predicts that stimuli where polarities correspond (e.g., positive words presented UP) provide an additional processing benefit compared to stimuli where polarities do not correspond (e.g., negative words presented UP). A meta-analysis (Study 1) shows that a polarity account provides a better explanation of reaction times patterns in previous studies than an interference explanation. An experiment (Study 2) reveals that controlling for the polarity benefit of +polar words compared to -polar words did not only remove the main effect of word polarity, but also the interaction between word meaning and vertical position due to polarity correspondence. These results reveal that metaphor congruency effects should not be interpreted as automatic associations between vertical locations and word meaning, but are more parsimoniously explained by their structural overlap in polarities.

show abstract

“…During model construction reasoners imagine positioning mental tokens, representing the premise terms, such that the relation described in the premises is reflected in the structure of the model (Johnson-Laird, 1983). For relational reasoning problems, the model often has the structure of a spatial array, representing mental tokens one beside or underneath the other (e.g., DeSoto, London, & Handel, 1965;Huttenlocher, 1968). As a consequence, introspection is often the only means to assess what type of model is constructed and/or which kind of tokens are used to represent the premise terms (e.g., Egan & Grimes-Farrow, 1982;Huttenlocher, 1968;Quinton & Fellows, 1975).…”

Section: The Study Of Model-construction Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is model construction open to strategic decisions? An exploration in the field of linear reasoning

Dierckx

Vandierendonck

Pandelaere

2003

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports four experiments investigating whether model construction of linear reasoning problems is open to strategic decisions. A reversed choice/nochoice paradigm was used in which reasoners first had to apply two model construction strategies (acronym and rehearsal strategy) to two problem sets. Next, they could choose freely among the two strategies to apply to a new problem set. Experiment 1 showed that reasoners selected the strategy that they experienced as the most accurate one in the no-choice phase. Moreover, in Experiment 2, it was found that reasoners adapted their strategy choice to changing problem features, to use the most suitable strategy for premise encoding. Experiments 3 and 4 generalised these findings to more complex linear reasoning problems with a mixed sentence frame and a semi-continuous presentation of the premises, and to two-model problems. On the basis of these results, we argue that strategic decisions influence model construction in linear reasoning.For a long time, research in deductive reasoning has been driven by intense debates on the nature of the reasoning mechanism underlying all types of deductive reasoning. The heart of this controversy concerned the question of whether reasoning involves the syntactic application of natural deduction rules (mental rule theories; e.g., Rips, 1994) or is based upon the construction and manipulation of mental models representing the

show abstract

Social reasoning and spatial paralogic.

Cited by 264 publications

References 14 publications

Mental model construction in linear reasoning: Evidence for the construction of initial annotated models

Mental model construction in linear reasoning: Evidence for the construction of initial annotated models

Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space.

Is model construction open to strategic decisions? An exploration in the field of linear reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About