Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 81–93 | Cite as

Influences of task concreteness upon transitive responding in humans

  • Martina Siemann
  • Juan D. Delius
Original Article

Abstract

The derivation of the conclusion “Anna is bigger than Mary” from the premises “Anna is bigger than Paul” and “Mary is smaller than Paul” is considered an instance of transitive deduction. For a non-verbal presentation, the premise statements were here transformed into a multiple operant discrimination task. Adult subjects were trained with overlapping pairs of a six-member stimulus series (A+B−, A+C−, C+D−, D+E−, E+F−; +: choice rewarded, choice penalized). A computer game-type presentation that hid the actual problem structure from the subjects was employed. The effects of varying the presentation style of the task on the objective performance and the structure awareness of subjects were investigated. A first experiment used random polygons as stimuli and the relations between them were only signalled by the above reinforcement allocations. In a second experiment the stimuli were cartoon figures additionally involved in a dominance hierarchy that was suggested graphically. A third experiment used named items that were related through visible size differences in addition to the reinforcement allocations but was otherwise like an experiment using an abstract format reported by Werner et al. (1992). In all experiments a similar proportion of subjects responded transitively when subsequently tested with the pairs BD, BE and CE by preferentially choosing stimulus B or C. Each subject subsequently filled in a questionnaire, completed a stimulus ordering exercise, and was interviewed to find out whether they were explicitly aware of the stimulus hierarchy underlying each of the tasks. Although the proportion of subjects revealing an explicit transitive responding increased together with the concreteness of the stimuli and their relations across the experiments, the objective performance in terms of choice accuracy did not vary. The accuracy performance on tests could be accurately simulated with a modification of a simple conditioning model. It is concluded that an implicit mode of processing may underlie many instances of transitive responding in humans even when explicit task understanding is reported.

Keywords

Objective Performance Dominance Hierarchy Choice Accuracy Presentation Style Stimulus Series 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atmeave, A. (1956). The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception.Psychological Bulletin, 53, 452–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Belke, T. W. (1992). Stimulus preference and the transitivity of preference.Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 401–406.Google Scholar
  3. Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 187–214.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, D. C. (1991). The role of action in implicit learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 881–906.Google Scholar
  5. Boysen, S. T., Berntson, G. G., Shreyer, T. A., & Quigley, K. S. (1993). Processing of ordinarily and transitivity by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107, 208–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradbury, H., & Nelson, T. M. (1973). Transitivity and the patterns of adult preferences.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 337–339.Google Scholar
  7. Bryant, P. E., & Trabasso, T. (1971). Transitive inferences and memory in young children.Nature, 232, 456–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers, M., & McGonigle, B. O. (1984). Are children any more logical than monkeys on the five-term series problem?Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 5, 68–77 and 121–127.Google Scholar
  9. Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Smuts, B. (1986). Social relationships and social cognition in nonhuman primates.Science, 234, 1361–1366.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, H. H. (1969). Influence of language on solving three-term series problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 205–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Couvillion, P. A., & Bitterman, M. E. (1992). A conventional conditioning analysis of “transitive inference” in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 308–310.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, H. (1992). Logical transitivity in animals. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.).Cognitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 405–429) Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. De Soto, C. B., London, M., & Handel, S. (1965). Social reasoning and spatial paralogic.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 513–521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fersen, L. von, Wynne, C. D. L., Delius, J. D., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1991). Transitive inference formation in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 334–341.Google Scholar
  15. Gellermann, L. W. (1933). Chance orders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments.Journal of Genetic Psychology, 42, 206–208.Google Scholar
  16. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve baysian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats?Psychological Review, 102, 684–703.Google Scholar
  17. Gillan, D. J. (1981). Reasoning in the chimpanzee: II. Transitive inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 150–164.Google Scholar
  18. Haan, E. H. F. de, Young, A., & Newcombe, F. (1987). Face recognition without awareness.Cognitive Neuropsychology, 4, 385–415.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, M. R., & McGonigle, B. O. (1994). A model of transitive choice.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47B, 319–348.Google Scholar
  20. Hunter, I. M. L. (1957). The solving of three-term series problems.British Journal of Psychology, 48, 286–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Huttenlocher, J. (1968). Constructing spatial images: a strategy in reasoning.Psychological Review, 75, 550–560.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1986). Reasoning without logic. In T. Myers, K. Brown, & B. McGonigle (Eds.)Reasoning and discourse processes (pp. 13–49). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kuno, H., Kitadate, T., & Iwamoto, T. (1994). Formation of transitivity in conditional matching to sample by pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 399–408.Google Scholar
  24. Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual choice behavior. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Mandler, G. (1989). Memory: Conscious and unconscious. In Solomon, P. C., Goethals, G. R., Kelley, C. M., & Stephens, B. R. (Eds.)Memory: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 84–106). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Markovits, H., & Dumas, C. (1992). Can pigeons really make transitive inferences?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 311–312.Google Scholar
  27. Mazur, J. E., & Coe, D. (1987). Tests of transitivity in choices between fixed and variable reinforcer delays.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 287–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McIntire, K. D., Cleary, J. P., & Thompson, T. (1987). Conditional relations by monkeys: Reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 279–285.Google Scholar
  29. McGonigle, B., & Chalmers, M. (1977). Are monkeys logical?Nature, 267, 694–697.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McGonigle, B., & Chalmers, M. (1992). Monkeys are rational?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45B, 189–228.Google Scholar
  31. Mühlherr, A., & Siemann, M. (1995). Transitive inferences in young children: Testing a child-suitable learning setting. In N. Elsner & R. Menzel.Learning and memory (p. 34). Stuttgart: Thieme.Google Scholar
  32. Perruchet, P., Gallego, J., & Pacteau, C. (1992). A reinterpretation of some earlier evidence for abstractiveness of implicitly acquired knowledge.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 193–210.Google Scholar
  33. Piaget, J. (1921). Une forme verbal de la comparison chez l'enfant [A verbal form of comparisons in children].Archives de Psychologie, 1921, 141–172.Google Scholar
  34. Piaget, J. (1965).Logic and psychology. Manchester: University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning of artificial grammars.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 77, 317–327.Google Scholar
  36. Reber, A. S. (1993).Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 13, 501–518.Google Scholar
  38. Seeger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning.Psychological Bulletin, 115, 163–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.Google Scholar
  40. Sidman, M. (1990) Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.).Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93–114). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Siemann, M. (1993a). Transitive Inferenz: Experimentelle Untersuchung einer kognitiven Leistung [Transitive inference: experimental investigation of a cognitive competence]. Ph. D. Dissertation, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  42. Siemann, M. (1993b). “Transitive inferences” in pigeons and humans. In N. Elsner & M. Heisenberg (Eds.).Gene, brain, behavior (pp. 857). Stuttgart: Thieme.Google Scholar
  43. Siemann, M. (1994a). Memory load influences on transitive responding in humans. In N. Elsner & H. Breer (Eds.).Sensory transduction (p. 847). Stuttgart: Thieme.Google Scholar
  44. Siemann, M. (1994b). Überprüfung einfacher Modelle zum transitiven Schlußfolgern bei nonverbaler Aufgabenform [Test of simple models of transitive inference using a nonverbal form of presentation].Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 41, 584–616.Google Scholar
  45. Siemann, M., & Gebhardt, R. P. (1996). Einfluss der Instruktion und Aufgabenkomplexität auf transitive Schlußfolgerungen (Influence of instructions and task complexity upon transitive deductions). (Submitted).Google Scholar
  46. Siemann, M., & Delius, J. D. (1993). Implicit deductive responding in humans.Naturwissenschaften, 80, 363–366.Google Scholar
  47. Siemann, M., & Delius, J. D. (1994). Processing of hierarchic stimulus structures has advantages in humans and animals.Biological Cybernetics, 71, 531–536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Siemann, M., Delius, J. D., & Wright, A. A. (1994). Transitive responding in pigeons: Influence of stimulus frequency and reinforcement history. Behavioural processes, in press.Google Scholar
  49. Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task.Cognition, 57, 31–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Trabasso, T., & Riley, C. A. (1975). The construction and use of representation involving linear order. In R. L. Solso (Ed.)Information processing and cognition. The Loyola symposium (pp. 381–410). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Waal, F. de (1988). Chimpanzee politics. In R. Byrne & A. Whitten (Eds.)Machiavellian intelligence (pp. 122–131). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  52. Werner, U., Köppl, U., & Delius, J. D. (1992). Transitive Inferenz bei nichtverbaler Aufgabendarbietung [Transitive inference with nonverbally presented tasks].Zeitschrift fur experimentelle and angewandte Psychologie, 39, 662–683.Google Scholar
  53. Wynne, C. D. L. (1995). Reinforcement accounts for transitive inference performance.Animal Learning & Behavior, 23, 207–217.Google Scholar
  54. Wynne, C. D. L., Fersen, L. von, Staddon, J. E. R. (1992). Pigeons' transitive inferences are the outcome of elementary conditioning principles: a response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 313–315.Google Scholar
  55. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking. Preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Siemann
    • 1
  • Juan D. Delius
    • 1
  1. 1.Allgemeine PsychologieUniversität KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations