Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 569–592 | Cite as

Properties of inductive reasoning



This paper reviews the main psychological phenomena of inductive reasoning, covering 25 years of experimental and model-based research, in particular addressing four questions. First, what makes a case or event generalizable to other cases? Second, what makes a set of cases generalizable? Third, what makes a property or predicate projectable? Fourth, how do psychological models of induction address these results? The key results in inductive reasoning are outlined, and several recent models, including a new Bayesian account, are evaluated with respect to these results. In addition, future directions for experimental and model-based work are proposed.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1990).The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Bacon, F. (1898).Novum organum. London: George Bell and Sons. (Original work published 1620)Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, D. A., Markman, E. M., &Melartin, R. L. (1993). Infants’ ability to draw inferences about nonobvious object properties: Evidence from exploratory play.Child Development,64, 711–728.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories.Memory & Cognition,11, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Box, G. E. P., &Tiao, G. C. (1973).Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, S. (1985).Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  8. Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., &Smith, E. E. (1997). Culture, category salience, and inductive reasoning.Cognition,65, 15–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., &Atran, S. (1997). Does rank have its privilege? Inductive inferences within folkbiological taxonomies.Cognition,64, 73–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., Proffitt, J. B., Lynch, E. B., &Atran, S. (1999). Inductive reasoning in folkbiological thought. In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.),Folkbiology (pp. 205–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Florian, J. E. (1994). Stripes do not a zebra make, or do they: Conceptual and perceptual information in inductive inference.Developmental Psychology,30, 88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fried, L. S., &Holyoak, K. J. (1984). Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 234–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelman, S. A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories.Cognitive Psychology,20, 65–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gelman, S. A., &Coley, J. D. (1990). The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird: Categories and inferences in 2-year-old children.Developmental Psychology,26, 796–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelman, S. A., &Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children.Cognition,23, 183–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman, S. A., &O’Reilly, A. W. (1988). Children’s inductive inferences within superordinate categories: The role of language and category structure.Child Development,59, 876–887.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodman, N. (1955).Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodman, N. (1972).Problems and projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. Gutheil, G., &Gelman, S. A. (1997). Children’s use of sample size and diversity information within basic-level categories.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,64, 159–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadjichristidis, D., Sloman, S. A., Stevenson, R. J., &Over, D. E. (1999). Centrality and property induction. InProceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 795). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Hahn, U., &Chater, N. (1997). Concepts and similarity. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.),Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 43–92). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heit, E. (1997). Knowledge and concept learning. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.),Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 7–41). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heit, E. (1998). A Bayesian analysis of some forms of inductive reasoning. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.),Rational models of cognition (pp. 248–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heit, E., &Bott, L. (2000). Knowledge selection in category learning. In D. L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 39, pp. 163–199). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heit, E., &Hahn, U. (1999). Diversity-based reasoning in children age 5 to 8. InProceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 212–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Heit, E., &Rubinstein, J. (1994). Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hempel, C. G. (1966).Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Homa, D., &Vosburgh, R. (1976). Category breadth and the abstraction of prototypical information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hume, D. (1988).An enquiry concerning human understanding. La Salle, IL: Open Court. (Original work published 1748)Google Scholar
  30. Kalish, C. W., &Gelman, S. A. (1992). On wooden pillows: Multiple classifications and children’s category-based inductions.Child Development,63, 1536–1557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lassaline, M. E. (1996). Structural alignment in induction and similarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 754–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loose, J. J., &Mareschal, D. (1999). Inductive reasoning revisited: Children’s reliance on category labels and appearances. InProceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 320–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. López, A. (1995). The diversity principle in the testing of arguments.Memory & Cognition,23, 374–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. López, A., Atran, S., Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., &Smith, E. E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folkbiological taxonomies and inductions.Cognitive Psychology,32, 251–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. López, A., Gelman, S. A., Gutheil, G., &Smith, E. E. (1992). The development of category-based induction.Child Development,63, 1070–1090.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Macario, J. F., Shipley, E. F., &Billman, D. O. (1990). Induction from a single instance: Formation of a novel category.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,50, 179–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Mandler, J. M., &McDonough, L. (1996). Drinking and driving don’t mix: Inductive generalization in infancy.Cognition,59, 307–335.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mandler, J. M., &McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy.Cognitive Psychology,37, 60–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mandler, J. M., &McDonough, L. (in press). Advancing downward to the basic level.Journal of Cognition & Development.Google Scholar
  40. McDonald, J., Samuels, M., &Rispoli, J. (1996). A hypothesis-assessment model of categorical argument strength.Cognition,59, 199–217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity.Psychological Review,100, 254–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., &Atran, S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?Cognitive Psychology,32, 49–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Medin, D. L., &Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mill, J. S. (1874).A system of logic. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  45. Murphy, G. L., &Ross, B. H. (1999). Induction with cross-classified categories.Memory & Cognition,27, 1024–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nagel, E. (1939).Principles of the theory of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., &Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning.Psychological Review,90, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Osherson, D. [N.], Smith, E. E., Myers, T. S., Shafir, E., &Stob, M. (1994). Extrapolating human probability judgment.Theory & Decision,36, 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., &Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction.Psychological Review,97, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Osherson, D. N., Stern, J., Wilkie, O., Stob, M., &Smith, E. E. (1991). Default probability.Cognitive Science,15, 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Posner, M. I., &Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 353–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Proffitt, J. B., Coley, J. L., &Medin, D. L. (2000). Expertise and category-based induction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 811–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raiffa, H., &Schlaifer, R. (1961).Applied statistical decision theory. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.Google Scholar
  54. Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 665–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. G., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ross, B. H., &Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Crossclassification and category organization in a complex real-world domain.Cognitive Psychology,38, 495–553.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Shipley, E. F. (1993). Categories, hierarchies, and induction. In D. L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 30, pp. 265–301). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction.Cognitive Psychology,25, 231–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sloman, S. A. (1994). When explanations compete: The role of explanatory coherence on judgments of likelihood.Cognition,52, 1–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sloman, S. A. (1997). Explanatory coherence and the induction of properties.Thinking & Reasoning,2, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sloman, S. A. (1998). Categorical inference is not a tree: The myth of inheritance hierarchies.Cognitive Psychology,35, 1–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, E. E., Shafir, E., &Osherson, D. (1993). Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability.Cognition,49, 67–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Spellman, B. A., López, A., &Smith, E. E. (1999). Hypothesis testing: Strategy selection for generalising versus limiting hypotheses.Thinking & Reasoning,5, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Springer, K. (1992). Children’s awareness of the biological implications of kinship.Child Development,63, 950–959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.Cognitive Psychology,5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Waxman, S. R., Lynch, E. B., Casey, K. L., &Baer, L. (1997). Setters and samoyeds: The emergence of subordinate level categories as a basis for inductive inference in preschool-age children.Developmental Psychology,33, 1074–1090.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu, M., &Gentner, D. (1998). Structure in category-based induction. InProceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1154–1158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryEngland

Personalised recommendations