Abstract
In this study, we looked at the contributions of individual differences in susceptibility to interference and working memory to logical reasoning with premises that were empirically false (i.e., not necessarily true). A total of 97 university students were given a sentence completion task for which a subset of stimuli was designed to generate inappropriate semantic activation that interfered with the correct response, a measure of working memory capacity, and a series of logical reasoning tasks with premises that were not always true. The results indicate that susceptibility to interference, as measured by the error rate on the relevant subset of the sentence completion task, and working memory independently account for variation in reasoning performance. The participants who made more errors in the relevant portion of the sentence completion task also showed more empirical intrusions in the deductive reasoning task, even when the effects of working memory were partialed out. Working memory capacity was more clearly related to processes involved in generating uncertainty responses to inferences for which there was no certain conclusion. A comparison of the results of this study with studies of children’s reasoning suggests that adults are capable of more selective executive processes than are children. An analysis of latency measures on the sentence completion task indicated that high working memory participants who made no errors on the sentence completion task used a strategy that involved slower processing speed, as compared with participants with similar levels of working memory who did make errors. In contrast, low working memory participants who made no errors on the sentence completion task had relatively shorter reaction times than did comparable participants who did make errors.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baddeley, A. D., Logie, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., &Brereton, N. (1985). Components of fluent reading.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 119–131.
Barrouillet, P., &Lecas, J.-F. (1999). Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory.Thinking & Reasoning,5, 289–302.
Bjorklund, D. F., &Harnishfeger, K. K. (1990). The resources construct in cognitive development: Diverse sources of evidence and a theory of inefficient inhibition.Developmental Review,10, 48–71.
Bjorklund, D. F., &Harnishfeger, K. K. (1995). The evolution of inhibition mechanisms and their role in human cognition and behavior. In F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 141–173). London: Academic Press.
Burgess, P. W., &Shallice, T. (1996). Response suppression, initiation and strategy use following frontal lobe lesions.Neuropsychologia,34, 263–273.
Cummins, D. D. (1995). Naive theories and causal deduction.Memory & Cognition,23, 646–658.
Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., &Rist, R. (1991). Conditional reasoning and causation.Memory & Cognition,19, 274–282.
Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.
Demetriou, A., Christou, C., Spanoudis, G., &Platsidou, M. (2002). The development of mental processing: Efficiency, working memory, and thinking.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,67, 1–155.
DeNeys, W., Schaeken, W., &d’Ydewalle, G. (2002). Causal conditional reasoning and semantic memory retrieval: A test of the semantic memory framework.Memory & Cognition,30, 908–920.
Dias, M. G., &Harris, P. L. (1988). The effect of make-believe play on deductive reasoning.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,6, 207–221.
Dias, M. G., &Harris, P. L. (1990). The influence of the imagination on reasoning.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,8, 305–318.
Dulaney, C. L., &Rogers, W. A. (1994). Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 470–484.
Evans, J. St. B. T., &Over, D. E. (1996).Rationality in reasoning. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
George, C. (1995). The endorsement of the premises: Assumption-based or belief-based reasoning.British Journal of Psychology,86, 93–111.
George, C. (1997). Reasoning from uncertain premises.Thinking & Reasoning,3, 161–189.
Handley, S. J., Capon, A., Beveridge, M., Dennis, I., &Evans, J. St. B. T. (2004). Working memory, inhibitory control and the development of children’s reasoning.Thinking & Reading,10, 175–195.
Houdé, O., Zago, L., Mellet, E., Moutier, S., Pineau, A., Mazoyer, B., &Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2000). Shifting from the perceptual brain to the logical brain: The neural impact of cognitive inhibition training.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,12, 721–728.
Inhelder, B., &Piaget, J. (1958).The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Janveau-Brennan, G., &Markovits, H. (1999). The development of reasoning with causal conditionals.Developmental Psychology,35, 904–911.
Kane, M. J., &Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 637–671.
Kyllonen, P. C., &Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?!Intelligence,14, 389–433.
Long, D. L., &Prat, C. S. (2002). Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation.Memory & Cognition,30, 294–301.
Markovits, H. (1995). Conditional reasoning with false premises: Fantasy and information retrieval.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,13, 1–11.
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,64, 742–755.
Markovits, H., &Potvin, F. (2001). Suppression of valid inferences and knowledge structures: The curious effect of producing alternative antecedents on reasoning with causal conditionals.Memory & Cognition,29, 736–744.
Markovits, H., &Quinn, S. (2002). Efficiency of retrieval correlates with “logical” reasoning from causal conditional premises.Memory & Cognition,30, 696–706.
Markovits, H., &Vachon, R. (1989). Reasoning with contrary-to-fact propositions.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,47, 398–412.
Markovits, H., Venet, M., Janveau-Brennan, G., Malfait, N., Pion, N., &Vadeboncoeur, I. (1996). Reasoning in young children: Fantasy and information retrieval.Child Development,67, 2857–2872.
Moutier, S., &Houdé, O. (2003). Judgement under uncertainty and conjunction fallacy inhibition training.Thinking & Reasoning,9, 185–201.
Neil, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1291–1305.
Neil, W. T., &Valdes, L. A. (1992). The persistence of negative priming: Steady-state or decay?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 565–576.
Oaksford, M., Chater, N., &Larkin, J. (2000). Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 883–899.
Rosen, V. M., &Engle, R. W. (1996). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 211–227.
Simoneau, M., &Markovits, H. (2003). Reasoning with premises that are not empirically true: Evidence for the role of inhibition and retrieval.Developmental Psychology,39, 964–975.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,119, 3–22.
Thompson, V. A. (1994). Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning.Memory & Cognition,22, 742–758.
Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A, 571–590.
Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 321–343.
Toms, M., Morris, N., &Ward, D. (1993). Working memory and conditional reasoning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46A, 679–699.
Vadeboncoeur, I., &Markovits, H. (1999). The effect of instructions and information retrieval on accepting the premises in a conditional reasoning task.Thinking & Reasoning,5, 97–113.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this article was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche (FCAR).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
markovits, H., doyon, C. Information processing and reasoning with premises that are empirically false: Interference, working memory, and processing speed. Memory & Cognition 32, 592–601 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195850
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195850