1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 31, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Prior research shows mixed findings regarding individuals’ belief-revision strategies. The current research is aimed to test (a) whether individuals’ reasoning across abstract vs real-world content shows similarity, and (b) whether individuals’ syllogistic reasoning predicts their belief-revision strategies. Experiment 1, testing 76 participants (50 females), provides evidence for the similarity in reasoning across abstract and real-world content ( < .05). In Experiment 2, testing 84 participants (58 females), we find no significant effect of reasoning performance on belief-revision strategies ( > .05). Individuals seem to revise the conditional statement in the AC and DA inferences, especially when the content poses a threat. In contrast, individuals prefer to revise the categorical premise in the MT inferences, especially when the content poses a threat. These findings suggest that in the face of inconsistency individuals’ decision about which of their prior beliefs they should revise is influenced by the structure and content of the belief-contravening problem rather than their reasoning ability.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00045.ozd
2024-10-11
2025-07-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.00045.ozd
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barnoy, Aviv & Zvi Reich
    2022 Trusting others: A pareto distribution of source and message credibility among news reporters. Communication Research49(2). 196–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Beller, Sieghard, Andrea Bender & Gregory Kuhnmünch
    2005 Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking & Reasoning11(3). 209–238. 10.1080/13546780442000141
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780442000141 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanchette, Isabelle & Serge Caparos
    2018 When emotions improve reasoning: The possible roles of relevance and utility. InShira Elqayam, Jean-François Bonnefon & David Over (eds.), New paradigm psychology of reasoning: Basic and applied perspectives, 163–177. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Briñol, Pablo & Richard E. Petty
    2009 Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology20(1). 49–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bronkhorst, Hugo, Gerrit Roorda, Cor Suhre & Martin Goedhart
    2020 Logical reasoning in formal and everyday reasoning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education181. 1673–1694. 10.1007/s10763‑019‑10039‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10039-8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrne, Ruth M. J. & Clare R. Walsh
    2002 Contradictions and counterfactuals: Generating belief revisions in conditional inference. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society241, 160–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chater, Nick & Mike Oaksford
    2001 Human rationality and the psychology of reasoning: Where do we go from here?British Journal of Psychology92(1). 193–216. 10.1348/000712601162031
     https://doi.org/10.1348/000712601162031 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dieussaert, Kristien, Walter Schaeken, Walter Schroyens & Gery D’Ydewalle
    2000 Strategies during complex conditional inferences. Thinking & Reasoning6(2). 125–160. 10.1080/135467800402820
     https://doi.org/10.1080/135467800402820 [Google Scholar]
  9. Elio, Renée & Francis Jeffry Pelletier
    1997 Belief change as propositional update. Cognitive Science21(4). 419–460. 10.1207/s15516709cog2104_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2104_2 [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans, Jonathan St B. T.
    2002 Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin128(6). 978–996. 10.1037/0033‑2909.128.6.978
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.978 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, Jonathan St B. T., Simon J. Handley & David E. Over
    2003 Conditionals and conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29(2). 321–335.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, Jonathan St B. T., Simon J. Handley, Helen Neilens & David Over
    2008 Understanding causal conditionals: A study of individual differences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology61(9). 1291–1297. 10.1080/17470210802027961
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802027961 [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & David E. Over
    2004 If: Supposition, pragmatics, and dual processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525134.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525134.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & Keith E. Stanovich
    2013 Dual process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science8(3). 223–241. 10.1177/1745691612460685
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685 [Google Scholar]
  15. Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & Joanna Twyman-Musgrove
    1998 Conditional reasoning with inducements and advice. Cognition69(1). B11–B16. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00062‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00062-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Flanagin, Andrew J., Stephan Winter & Miriam J. Metzger
    2018 Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society23(7). 1038–1056.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gauffroy, Caroline & Pierre Barrouillet
    2009 Heuristic and analytic processes in mental models for conditionals: An integrative developmental theory. Developmental Review29(4). 249–282. 10.1016/j.dr.2009.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goel, Vinod, Christian Buchel, Chris Frith & Raymond J. Dolan
    2000 Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. Neuroimage12(5). 504–514. 10.1006/nimg.2000.0636
     https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0636 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goel, Vinod & Oshin Vartanian
    2011 Negative emotions can attenuate the influence of beliefs on logical reasoning. Cognition and Emotion25(1). 121–131. 10.1080/02699931003593942
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003593942 [Google Scholar]
  20. Handley, Simon J., Stephen E. Newstead & Dries Trippas
    2011 Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition37(1). 28–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hanley, James A., Abdissa Negassa, Michael D. deB Edwardes & Janet E. Forrester
    2003 Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: An orientation. American Journal of Epidemiology157(4). 364–375. 10.1093/aje/kwf215
     https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwf215 [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedeker
    2011 Logic and conversation revisited: Evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes26(8). 1161–1172. 10.1080/01690965.2010.508641
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.508641 [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson-Laird, Philip N.
    2001 Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences5(10). 434–442. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01751‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01751-4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson-Laird, Philip N. & Ruth M. J. Byrne
    2002 Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review109(4). 646–678. 10.1037/0033‑295X.109.4.646
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.646 [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson-Laird, Philip N., Ruth M. Byrne & Walter Schaeken
    1992 Propositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review99(3). 418–439. 10.1037/0033‑295X.99.3.418
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.418 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kahan, Dan M.
    2013 Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making8(4). 407–424. 10.1017/S1930297500005271
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271 [Google Scholar]
  27. Khemlani, Sangeet S. & Philip N. Johnson-Laird
    2011 The need to explain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology64(11). 2276–2288. 10.1080/17470218.2011.592593
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.592593 [Google Scholar]
  28. Klaczynski, Paul A. & Billi Robinson
    2000 Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging15(3). 400–416. 10.1037/0882‑7974.15.3.400
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.3.400 [Google Scholar]
  29. Markovits, Henry, Janie Brisson, Pier-Luc de Chantal & Valeria A. Thompson
    2017 Interactions between inferential strategies and belief bias. Memory & Cognition451. 1182–1192. 10.3758/s13421‑017‑0723‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0723-2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Markovits, Henry, Celine Doyon & Michael Simoneau
    2002 Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content. Thinking & Reasoning8(2). 97–107. 10.1080/13546780143000143
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780143000143 [Google Scholar]
  31. Metzger, Miriam J.
    2007 Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58(13). 2078–2091.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Newstead, Stephen E.
    1997 Conditional reasoning with realistic material. Thinking & Reasoning3(1). 49–76. 10.1080/135467897394428
     https://doi.org/10.1080/135467897394428 [Google Scholar]
  33. Oaksford, Mike & Nick Chater
    2001 The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences5(8). 349–357. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01699‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01699-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Özdemir, Barış
    2016 The effect of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on event related potentials under deductive reasoning tasks. Istanbul: Istanbul University PhD dissertation.
  35. Özlem, Doğan
    1999 Mantık [Logic]. Istanbul: Inkılap Kitabevi Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Politzer, Guy & Laure Carles
    2001 Belief revision and uncertain reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning7(3). 217–234. 10.1080/13546780143000017
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780143000017 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rescher, Nicholas
    1964 Hypothetical reasoning. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Revlin, Russell, Dustin P. Calvillo & Stephanie Ballard
    2005 Counterfactual reasoning: Resolving inconsistency before your eyes. Psychologica Belgica45(1). 47–56. 10.5334/pb‑45‑1‑47
     https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-45-1-47 [Google Scholar]
  39. Revlin, Russell, Dustin P. Calvillo & Patricia Mautone
    2013 Counterfactual reasoning: How to organize a possible world. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society251, 994–999.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Revlin, Russell, Christina L. Cate & Tena S. Rouss
    2001 Reasoning counterfactually: Combining and rending. Memory & Cognition291. 1196–1208. 10.3758/BF03206389
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206389 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rojas-Barahona, Cristian A., Sergio Moreno-Ríos, Juan A. García-Madruga & Carla E. Förster
    2023 Content of relationship, number of alternatives and working memory capacity in conditional inferences. Current Psychology42(8). 6468–6483. 10.1007/s12144‑021‑01966‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01966-3 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sparks, Jesse R. & David N. Rapp
    2011 Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition37(1). 230–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sternberg, Robert J.
    2008 Cognitive psychology (5th edn.). Belmont: Wadsworth Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Swan, Alexander, Alexandra Chambers & Russell Revlin
    2013 Scope of real beliefs in belief revision. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society351, 1414–1419.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Todorov, Alexander, Shelly Chaiken & Marlone D. Henderson
    2002 The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, 195–211. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781412976046.n11
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046.n11 [Google Scholar]
  46. Trippas, Dries, Valerie A. Thompson & Simon J. Handley
    2017 When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias. Memory & Cognition451. 539–552. 10.3758/s13421‑016‑0680‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Hoeck, Nicole, Russell Revlin, Kristien Dieussaert & Walter Schaeken
    2012 The development of counterfactual reasoning in belief revision. Psychologica Belgica52(4). 407–433. 10.5334/pb‑52‑4‑407
     https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-52-4-407 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wolf, Ann G. & Markus Knauff
    2008 The strategy behind belief revision: A matter of judging probability or the use of mental models?InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society301, 831–836.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2009 Familiarity effects and questioning biases in human belief revision. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society311, 2878–2883.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wolf, Ann G., Susann Rieger & Markus Knauff
    2012 The effects of source trustworthiness and inference type on human belief revision. Thinking & Reasoning18(4). 417–440. 10.1080/13546783.2012.677757
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.677757 [Google Scholar]
  51. Xu, Yangyi, Inyoung Kim & Raymond J. Carroll
    2019 A hybrid omnibus test for generalized semiparametric single-index models with high-dimensional covariate sets. Biometrics75(3). 757–767. 10.1111/biom.13054
     https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13054 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00045.ozd
Loading
The role of logical reasoning, belief-content and the type of inference in belief revision
Pragmatics & Cognition 31, 205 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00045.ozd
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00045.ozd
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00045.ozd
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): abstract vs real-world content; belief revision strategies; deductive reasoning; inferential thinking; logical reasoning ability

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error