Biomedical subjects

Maxwell J Roberts

Publications and source records attributed to Maxwell J Roberts.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Categorical reasoning from multiple diagrams.

Syllogistic reasoning from categorical premise pairs is generally taken to be a multistep process. Quantifiers (all, no, some, some ... not) must be interpreted, representations constructed, and conclusions identified from these. Explanations of performance have been proposed in which errors may occur at any of these stages. The current paper contrasts (a) representation explanations of performance, in which errors occur because not all possible representations are constructed, and/or mistakes are made when doing so (e.g., mental models theory), and (b) conclusion identification explanations, in which errors occur even when information has been correctly and exhaustively represented, due to systematic difficulties that people may have when identifying particular conclusions, or in identifying conclusions in particular circumstances. Three experiments are reported, in which people identified valid conclusions from diagrams analogous to Euler circles, so that the first two stages of reasoning from premise pairs were effectively removed. Despite this, several phenomena associated with reasoning from premise pairs persisted, and it is suggested that whereas representation explanations may account for some of these phenomena, conclusion identification explanations, which have never previously been considered, are required for others.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Expanding the universe of categorical syllogisms: a challenge for reasoning researchers.

Syllogistic reasoning, in which people identify conclusions from quantified premise pairs, remains a benchmark task whose patterns of data must be accounted for by general theories of deductive reasoning. However, psychologists have confined themselves to administering only the 64 premise pairs historically identified by Aristotle. By utilizing all combinations of negations, the present article identifies an expanded set of 576 premise pairs and gives the valid conclusions that they support. Many of these have interesting properties, and the identification of predictions and their verification will be an important next step for all proponents of such theories.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Belief bias and relational reasoning.

When people evaluate categorical syllogisms, they tend to reject unbelievable conclusions and accept believable ones irrespective of their validity. Typically, this effect is particularly marked for invalid conclusions that are possible, but do not necessarily follow, given the premises. However, smaller believability effects can also be detected for other types of conclusion. Three experiments are reported here, in which an attempt was made to determine whether belief bias effects can manifest themselves on the relational inference task. Subjects evaluated the validity of conclusions such as William the Conqueror was king after the Pyramids were built (temporal task) or Manchester is north of Bournemouth (spatial task) with respect to their premises. All of the major findings for equivalent categorical syllogism tasks were replicated. However, the overall size of the main effect of believability appears to be related to task presentation, a phenomenon not previously identified for categorical syllogisms and which current theories of belief bias have difficulty explaining.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

The elusive matching bias effect in the disjunctive selection task.

When reasoning with conditional statements (i.e., if [not] p then [not] q), for example when solving Wason's selection task, subjects tend to display matching bias: Options which match the entities named in the rule tend to be selected irrespective of whether this is logically appropriate. Recently, there have been suggestions that the underlying causes of matching bias reflect a general phenomenon that applies to many types of logical rule, not just conditionals. A study is reported in which performance is investigated for selection tasks with categorical or disjunctive rules. Although matching bias was clearly present for categorical rules, inverted matching bias was identified for disjunctive rules, calling into question the generality of the phenomenon and its explanations. In addition, performance at one task was not correlated with performance at the other, calling into question recent cognitive capacity accounts of selection task performance.

Adolescent↗