Abstract
Considerable evidence has revealed that working memory capacity is an important determinant of conditional reasoning performance. There are two accounts describing the conditional inference process, the probabilistic and the mental models accounts. According to the mental models account, reasoners retrieve and integrate counterexample information to attain a conclusion. According to the probabilistic account, reasoners base their judgments on probabilistic information. It can be assumed that reasoning according to the mental models process would require more working memory resources than would solving the inference on the basis of probabilistic information. By means of a verbal report study, we showed that participants with low working memory capacity more often use probabilistic information, whereas participants with higher working memory capacity are more likely to use counterexample information. Working memory capacity thus not only relates to reasoning performance, it also determines which process reasoners will engage in.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A. D., &Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.),Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barrouillet, P., &Lecas, J. F. (1999). Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory.Thinking & Reasoning,5, 289–302.
Bindra, D., Clarke, K. A., &Shultz, T. R. (1980). Understanding predictive relations of necessity and sufficiency in formally equivalent “causal” and “logical” problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 422–443.
Byrne, R. M. J., Espino, O., &Santamaria, C. (1999). Counterexamples and the suppression of inferences.Journal of Memory & Language,40, 347–373.
Campbell, J. I. D., &Gunter, R. (2002). Calculations, culture and the repeated operant effect.Cognition,86, 71–96.
Copeland, D. E., &Radvansky, G. A. (2004). Working memory and syllogistic reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A, 1437–1457.
Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., &Rist, R. (1991). Conditional reasoning and causation.Memory & Cognition,19, 274–282.
De Neys, W. (2003)In search of counterexamples: A specification of the memory search process for stored counterexamples during conditional reseasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven.
Evans, J. St. B. T., &Over, D. E. (1996).Rationality and reasoning. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Ford, M. (1995). Two modes of mental representation and problem solution in syllogistic reasoning.Cognition,54, 1–71.
George, C. (1997). Reasoning with uncertain premises.Thinking & Reasoning,3, 161–189.
Gilhooly, K. J., Logie, R. H., &Wynn, V. (1999). Syllogistic reasoning tasks, working memory, and skill.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,11, 473–498.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1994). Mental models and probabilistic thinking.Cognition,50, 189–209.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., &Byrne, R. M. J. (1991).Deduction. Hove, U.K.: 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.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., &Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 169–183.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Analytic and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and decision making.Child Development,72, 844–861.
Klauer, K. C., Stegmaier, R., &Meiser, T. (1997). Working memory involvement in propositional and spatial reasoning.Thinking & Reasoning,3, 9–47.
Kyllonen, P. C., &Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?!Intelligence,14, 389–433.
La Pointe, L. B., &Engle, R. W. (1990). Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 1118–1133.
Liu, I., Lo, K., &Wu, J. (1996). A probabilistic interpretation of “if-then”.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 828–844.
Markovits, H., &Barrouillet, P. (2002). The development of conditional reasoning: A mental model account.Developmental Review,22, 5–36.
Markovits, H., Doyon, C., &Simoneau, M. (2002). Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content.Thinking & Reasoning,8, 97–107.
Markovits, H., Fleury, M. L., Quinn, S., &Venet, M. (1998). The development of conditional reasoning and the structure of semantic memory.Child Development,69, 742–755.
Meiser, T., Klauer, K. C., &Naumer, B. (2001). Propositional reasoning and working memory: The role of prior training and pragmatic content.Acta Psychologica,106, 303–327.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., &Howerter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis.Cognitive Psychology,41, 49–100.
Miyake, A., &Shah, P. (Eds.) (u1999).Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moskowitz, G. B., Skurnik, I., &Galinsky, A. D. (1999). The history of dual-process notions and the future of preconscious control. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.),Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 12–41). New York: Guilford Press.
Oaksford, M., Chater, N., &Larkin, J. (2000). Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 883–899.
Oberauer, K., Süss, H.-M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., &Wittmann, W. W. (2000). Working memory capacity—Facets of a cognitive ability construct.Personality & Individual Differences,29, 1017–1045.
Oberauer, K., Süss, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., &Wittmann, W. W. (2003). The multiple facets of working memory: Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination.Intelligence,31, 167–193.
Oberauer, K., &Wilhelm, O. (2003). The meaning(s) of conditionals: Conditional probabilities, mental models, and personal utilities.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 680–693.
Payne, J. W. (1994). Thinking-aloud: Insights into information processing.Psychological Science,5, 245–248.
Politzer, G., &Bourmaud, G. (2002). Deductive reasoning from uncertainconditionals.British Journal of Psychology,93, 345–381.
Rosen, V. M., &Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 211–227.
Schroyens, W., & Schaeken, W. (2004). Guilt by association: On iffy propositions and the proper treatment of mental-models theory.Current Psychology Letters,12 (1). Available at http://cpl.revues.org/ document411.html.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behavioural & Brain Sciences,23, 645–726.
Stenning, K., &Van Lambalgen, M. (2001). Semantics as a foundation for psychology: A case study of Wason’s selection task.Journal of Logic, Language, & Information,10, 273–317.
Stevenson, R. J., &Over, D. E. (1995). Deduction from uncertain premises.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A, 613–643.
Thompson, V. (2000). The task-specific nature of domain-general reasoning.Cognition,76, 209–268.
Toms, M., Morris, N., &Ward, D. (1993). Working memory and conditional reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46A, 679–699.
Turner, M. L., &Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 127–154.
Venet, M., &Markovits, H. (2001). Understanding uncertainty with abstract conditional premises.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,47, 74–99.
Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., De Neys, W., &d’Ydewalle, G. (2004). The difference between generating counterexamples and using them during reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A, 1285–1308.
Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., &d’Ydewalle, G. (2003a). Two reasoning mechanisms for solving the conditional fallacies. In A. Markman & L. Barsalou (Eds.),Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1176–1181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., &d’Ydewalle, G. (2003b).A verbal protocol study on causal conditional reasoning (Tech. Rep. No. 301). Leuven: University of Leuven, Laboratory of Experimental Psychology.
Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d’Ydewalle, G. (in press). A dual-process theory on causal conditional reasoning.Thinking & Reasoning.
Weidenfeld, A., &Oberauer, K. (2003). Reasoning from causal and noncausal conditionals: Testing an integrated framework. In A. Markman & L. Barsalou (Eds.),Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1212–1217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by funding from the F.W.O.-Vlaanderen (Belgium).
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W. & d’Ydewalle, G. Everyday conditional reasoning: A working memory—dependent tradeoff between counterexample and likelihood use. Mem Cogn 33, 107–119 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195301
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195301