Advertisement

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 229–232 | Cite as

Conversion and possibility in syllogistic reasoning

  • Louis S. Dickstein
Article
  • 304 Downloads

Abstract

Previous research on syllogistic reasoning has identified two bases of error on this task. One basis is the illicit conversion of universal affirmative and particular negative propositions. The second basis is the selection of propositional conclusions on indeterminate nonconversion syllogisms. The present study explores possible explanations for these phenomena. Data are presented that cast doubt on the explanation of conversion based upon the similarity between syllogistic premises and definitional statements. Even when the premises are modified so that they no longer resemble definitional statements, conversion still occurs. Bias toward symmetrical relations is discussed as an alternative explanation. Data are also presented to show that poor performance on indeterminate nonconversion syllogisms in large part reflects the failure of subjects to differentiate between possible and necessary conclusions. When this issue is clarified, performance significantly improves.

Keywords

Definitional Statement Deductive Reasoning Additional Instruction Syllogistic Reasoning Bulletin Ofthe Psychonomic Society 
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.

References

  1. Ceraso, J., & Provitera, A. Sources of error in syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 1971, 2, 400–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapman, L., & Chapman, J. Atmosphere effect reexamined. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 220–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickstein, L. Effects of instructions and premise order on errors in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975, 1, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickstein, L. Differential difficulty of categorical syllogisms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976, 8, 330–332.Google Scholar
  5. Dickstein, L. Error processes in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 1978, 6, 537–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickstein, L. Inference errors in deductive reasoning. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1980, 16, 414–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickstein, L. The meaning of conversion in syllogistic reasoning. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1981, 18, 135–138.Google Scholar
  8. Erickson, J. A set analysis theory of behavior in formal syllogistic reasoning tasks. In R. Solso (Ed.), Theories of cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, J. Research on syllogistic reasoning. In R. Revlin & R. Mayer (Eds.), Human reasoning. Washington, D.C: Winston-Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. Griggs, R. Drawing inferences from set inclusion information given in text. In R. Revlin & R. Mayer (Eds.), Human reasoning. Washington, D.C: Winston-Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Henle, M. Foreward. In R. Revlin & R. Mayer (Eds.), Human reasoning. Washington, D.C: Winston-Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. Revlin, R., Ammerman, K., Petersen, K., & Leirer, V. Category relations and syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Revlin, R., & Leirer, V. The effects of personal biases on syllogistic reasoning: Rational decisions from personalized representations. In R. Revlin & R. Mayer (Eds.), Human reasoning. Washington, D.C: Winston-Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Revlis, R. Syllogistic reasoning: Logical decisions from a complex data base. In R. Falmagne (Ed.), Reasoning: Representation and process. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. Tsal, Y. Symmetry and transitivity assumptions about a non-specified logical relation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1977, 29, 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilkins, M. The effect of changed material on ability to do formal syllogistic reasoning. Archives of Psychology, 1928, 16, 1–83.Google Scholar
  17. Woodworth, R., & Sells, S. An atmosphere effect in formal syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 18, 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis S. Dickstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Wellesley CollegeWellesley

Personalised recommendations