Abstract
Two studies investigated participants’ sensitivity to the amount and diversity of the evidence when reasoning inductively about categories. Both showed that participants are more sensitive to characteristics of the evidence for arguments with general rather than specific conclusions. Both showed an association between cognitive ability and sensitivity to these evidence characteristics, particularly when the conclusion category was general. These results suggest that a simple associative process may not be sufficient to capture some key phenomena of category-based induction. They also support the claim that the need to generate a superordinate category is a complicating factor in category-based reasoning and that adults’ tendency to generate such categories while reasoning has been overestimated.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alexopoulos, D. S. (1997). Reliability and validity of Heim’s AH4 in Greece.Personality & Individual Differences,22, 429–432.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., &Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test.Psychological Review,97, 404–431.
DeNeys, W. (2006). Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing in reasoning: Chronometric and dual task considerations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 1070–1100.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual process accounts of reasoning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 454–459.
Evans, J. St. B. T., &Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual process theory of reasoning.Thinking & Reasoning,11, 382–389.
Evans, J. St. B. T., &Over, D. E. (1996).Rationality and reasoning. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Feeney, A., Shafto, P., & Dunning D. (in press). Who is susceptible to conjunction fallacies in category-based induction?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
Handley, S. J., Capon, A., Beveridge, M., Dennis, I., &Evans, J. St. B. T. (2004). Working memory and inhibitory control in the development of children’s reasoning.Thinking & Reasoning,10, 175–196.
Heim, A. W. (1970).AH4 group test of intelligence [Manual]. London: National Foundation for Educational Research.
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.
Heit, E. (2000). Properties of inductive reasoning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 569–592.
Heit, E., &Feeney, A. (2005). Relations between premise similarity and inductive strength.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 340–344.
Heit, E., &Hahn, U. (2001). Diversity based reasoning in children.Cognitive Psychology,43, 243–273.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Analytical and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and decision making.Child Development,72, 844–861.
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.
López, A., Gelman, S. A., Gutheil, G., &Smith, E. E. (1992). The development of category-based induction.Child Development,63, 1070–1090.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. McDonald, J., Samuels, M., & Rispoli, J. (1996). A hypothesisassessment model of categorical argument strength.Cognition,59, 199–217.
Medin, D., Coley, J. D., Storms, G., &Hayes, B. (2003). A relevance theory of induction.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 517–532.
Newstead, S. E., Handley, S. J., Harley, C., Wright, H., &Farrelly, D. (2004). Individual differences in deductive reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57, 33–60.
Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, D., &Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday reasoning.Psychological Review,90, 339–363.
Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., &Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction.Psychological Review,97, 185–200.
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 988–1010.
Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 665–681.
Shafto, P., Kemp, C., Baraff, E., Coley, J. D., &Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Context sensitive induction. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.),Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2003–2008) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature based induction.Cognitive Psychology,25, 231–280.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,119, 3–22.
Sloman, S. A. (1998). Categorical inference is not a tree: The myth of inheritance hierarchies.Cognitive Psychology,35, 1–33.
Smith, E. E., Shafir, E., &Osherson, D. (1993). Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability.Cognition,49, 67–96.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999).Who is rational: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (1998a). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance.Thinking & Reasoning,4, 193–230.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (1998b). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects.Thinking & Reasoning,4, 289–317.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (1998c). Individual differences in rational thought.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 161–188.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (1998d). Who uses base rates and P(D/~H)? An analysis of individual differences.Memory & Cognition,26, 161–179.
Tabachnick, B. G., &Fidell, L. S. (1996).Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Psychological Review,90, 293–3l5.
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.),New horizons in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 131–151). Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feeney, A. How many processes underlie category-based induction? Effects of conclusion specificity and cognitive ability. Memory & Cognition 35, 1830–1839 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193513
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193513