Abstract
A theory of how individuals construct mental models to draw inferences from single premises was tested in three experiments. Experiment 1 confirmed a counterintuitive prediction that it is easier to generate inferences between conditionals and disjunctions than it is to evaluate them. Experiment 2 replicated this finding, but an advantage found in the first experiment for conditional-to-disjunction over disjunction-to-conditional inferences was removed with different sentence contents. Experiment 3 showed that disjunction-to-conditional inferences were facilitated when premises expressed familiar indicative relations, whereas conditional-to-disjunction inferences were facilitated when premises expressed causal relations. The results indicate that small changes in task format can have large effects on the strategies that people use to represent and reason about different sentential connectives. We discuss the potential for theories other than mental models to account for these results. We argue that, despite the important role played by single-premise inferences in paraphrasing logical forms during inference, mental logic theories cannot account for the results reported here.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baguley, T., &Payne, S. J. (1999). Recognition memory for sentences from spatial descriptions: A test of the episodic construction trace hypothesis.Memory & Cognition,27, 962–973.
Barwise, J. (986). Conditionals and conditional information. In E. C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.),On conditionals (pp. 21–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braine, M. D. S., &O’Brien, D. P. (Eds.) (1998).Mental logic. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., &Franks, J. J. (1972). Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretative approach.Cognitive Psychology,3, 193–209.
Cheng, P. W., &Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas.Cognitive Psychology,17, 391–416.
Dugan, C. M., &Revlin, R. (1990). Response options and presentation format as contributors to conditional reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42A, 829–848.
Evans, J. S. B., &Over, D. (1996).Rationality and reasoning. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Or: Some uses.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 913–921.
Gleitman, L. R., &Gleitman, H. (1970).Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. New York: Norton.
Hardman, D. K., &Payne, S. J. (1995). Problem difficulty and response format in syllogistic reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A, 945–975.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning.Annual Review of Psychology,50, 109–135.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and deduction.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,5, 407–455.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., &Byrne, R. M. J. (1991).Deduction. London: Erlbaum.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., &Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference.Psychological Review,109, 646–678.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Byrne, R. M. J., &Schaeken, W. (1992). Propositional reasoning by model.Psychological Review,99, 418–439.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., &Savary, F. (1999). Illusory inferences: A novel class of erroneous deductions.Cognition,71, 191–229.
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., &Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi.Cognitive Psychology,17, 248–294.
Manktelow, K. I. (1999).Reasoning and thinking. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Newstead, S. E., &Griggs, R. A. (1983). Drawing inferences from quantified statements: A study of the square of opposition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 535–546.
Oakhill, J. V., &Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1985). Rationality, memory, and the search for counter-examples.Cognition,20, 79–94.
Ormerod, T. C. (1997). Rationalities 1 and 2: Dual processes or different task demands?Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive,16, 181–189.
Ormerod, T. C. (2000). Mechanisms and strategies for rephrasing. In W. Schaeken, G. De Vooght, A. Vandierendonck, & G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.),Deductive reasoning and strategies (pp. 131–152). Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
Ormerod, T. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002).How pragmatics modulates the interpretation of sentential connectives. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Richardson, J., &Ormerod, T. C. (1997). Rephrasing between disjunctives and conditionals: Mental models and the effects of thematic content.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A, 358–385.
Rips, L. J. (1994).The psychology of proof. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomassi, P. (1999).Logic. New York: Routledge.
Wason, P. C. (1966).Reasoning. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported mainly by a Study Abroad grant to the first author from the Leverhulme Trust. Experiment 3 was carried out while both authors were at the Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University of Technology, as part of the second author’s Ph.D. research program sponsored by British Gas plc.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ormerod, T.C., Richardson, J. On the generation and evaluation of inferences from single premises. Memory & Cognition 31, 467–478 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194404
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194404