Abstract
In recent years, a number of proposals have been advanced to account for the errors that subjects make in deductive inferences from invalid syllogisms. Principles such as erroneous conversion of premises, probabilistic inference, feature selection, and various other interpretation and combination processes have been suggested. The present paper focuses on the 32 invalid categorical syllogisms for which conversion of premises does not provide an explanation of subject error. An explanation is presented in terms of three error processes: the erroneous conversion of conclusions resulting from backward processing, the erroneous integration of information from the two premises, and the failure to consider hypothetical possibilities. Empirical predictions regarding the differential difficulty of the various premise combinations as well as the pattern of correlations between premise combinations are derived from this formulation, and data are presented that support these predictions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Begg, I., &Denny, J. Empirical reconciliation of atmosphere and conversion interpretations of syllogistic reasoning errors.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,81, 351–354.
Ceraso, J., &Provitera, A. Sources of error in syllogistic reasoning.Cognitive Psychology, 1971,2, 400–410.
Chapman, L., &Chapman, J. Atmosphere effect reexamined.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959,58, 220–226.
Dickstein, L. S. Effects of instructions and premise order on errors in syllogistic reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975,1, 376–384.
Dickstein, L. S. Differential difficulty of categorical syllogisms.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976,8, 330–332.
Dickstein, L. S. The effect of figure on syllogistic reasoning.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 76–83.
Erickson, J. R. A set analysis theory of behavior in formal syllogistic reasoning tasks. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974.
Haviland, S. E., &Clark, H. H. What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974,13, 512–521.
Revlis, R. Syllogistic reasoning: Logical deductions from a complex data base. In R. J. Falmagne (Ed.),Reasoning: Representation and process. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975. (a)
Revlis, R. Two models of syllogistic reasoning: Feature selection and conversion.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975,14, 180–195. (b)
Roberge, J. A reexamination of the interpretation of errors in formal syllogistic reasoning.Psychonomic Science, 1970,19, 331–333.
Wason, P. C., &Johnson-Laird, P. N.Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Woodworth, R., &Sells, S. An atmosphere effect in formal syllogistic reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935,18, 451–460.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dickstein, L.S. Error processes in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition 6, 537–543 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198242
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198242