Cover not available
Article In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 31:1 (2024) ► pp.206–246

The role of logical reasoning, belief-content and the type of inference in belief revision

| Maltepe University
| Maltepe University
Prior research shows mixed findings regarding individuals’ belief-revision strategies. The current research is aimed to test (a) whether individuals’ reasoning across abstract vs real-world content shows similarity, and (b) whether individuals’ syllogistic reasoning predicts their belief-revision strategies. Experiment 1, testing 76 participants (50 females), provides evidence for the similarity in reasoning across abstract and real-world content (p < .05). In Experiment 2, testing 84 participants (58 females), we find no significant effect of reasoning performance on belief-revision strategies (p > .05). Individuals seem to revise the conditional statement in the AC and DA inferences, especially when the content poses a threat. In contrast, individuals prefer to revise the categorical premise in the MT inferences, especially when the content poses a threat. These findings suggest that in the face of inconsistency individuals’ decision about which of their prior beliefs they should revise is influenced by the structure and content of the belief-contravening problem rather than their reasoning ability.
Keywords: deductive reasoning, belief revision strategies, logical reasoning ability, abstract vs real-world content, inferential thinking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Experiment 1
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Measures
        • Logical reasoning task with abstract content
        • Logical reasoning task with real-world/concrete content
      • 3.1.3Procedure
      • 3.1.4Coding
      • 3.1.5Results
        • Accuracy in the logical reasoning task with abstract content
        • Accuracy in the logical reasoning task with real-world/concrete content
        • Comparison of individuals’ reasoning performance between abstract and real-world content
      • 3.1.6Discussion
    • 3.2Experiment 2
      • 3.2.1Participants
      • 3.2.2Measures
        • Logical reasoning task with abstract content
        • Belief revision task
      • 3.2.3Procedure
      • 3.2.4Coding
      • 3.2.5Results
        • Performance in the logical reasoning task with abstract content
        • Individuals’ reasoning strategies in belief revision task
      • 3.2.6Discussion
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (56)
References
Alchourrón, Carlos E., Peter Gärdenfors & David Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2). 510–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beller, Sieghard, Andrea Bender & Gregory Kuhnmünch. 2005. Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking & Reasoning 11(3). 209–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanchette, Isabelle & Serge Caparos. 2018. When emotions improve reasoning: The possible roles of relevance and utility. New Paradigm Psychology of Reasoning, 163–177.Google Scholar
Brandenburger, Adam & Eddie Dekel. 1993. Hierarchies of beliefs and common knowledge. Journal of Economic Theory 59(1). 189–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bronkhorst, Hugo, Gerrit Roorda, Cor Suhre & Martin Goedhart. 2020. Logical reasoning in formal and everyday reasoning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 181. 1673–1694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, Ruth M. J. & Clare R. Walsh. 2002. Contradictions and counterfactuals: Generating belief revisions in conditional inference. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 160–165. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chater, Nick & Mike Oaksford. 2001. Human rationality and the psychology of reasoning: Where do we go from here? British Journal of Psychology 92(1). 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dieussaert, Kristien, Walter Schaeken, Walter Schroyens & Gery D’Ydewalle. 2000. Strategies during complex conditional inferences. Thinking & Reasoning 6(2). 125–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elio, Renée & Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1997. Belief change as propositional update. Cognitive Science 21(4). 419–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T. 2002. Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin 128(6). 978–996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T., Simon J. Handley & David E. Over. 2003. Conditionals and conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29(2). 321–335.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T., Simon J. Handley, Helen Neilens & David Over. 2008. Understanding causal conditionals: A study of individual differences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(9). 1291–1297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & David E. Over. 2004. If: Supposition, pragmatics, and dual Processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan S. B. T. 2012. Dual process theories of deductive reasoning: Facts and fallacies. The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, 115–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & Keith E. Stanovich. 2013. Dual process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3). 223–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & Joanna Twyman-Musgrove. 1998. Conditional reasoning with inducements and advice. Cognition 69(1). B11–B16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fantino, Edmund, Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino & Anton Navarro. 2003. Logical fallacies: A behavioral approach to reasoning. The Behavior Analyst Today 4(1). 109–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gauffroy, Caroline & Pierre Barrouillet. 2009. Heuristic and analytic processes in mental models for conditionals: An integrative developmental theory. Developmental Review 29(4). 249–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goel, Vinod, Christian Buchel, Chris Frith & Raymond J. Dolan. 2000. Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. Neuroimage 12(5). 504–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goel, Vinod & Oshin Vartanian. 2011. Negative emotions can attenuate the influence of beliefs on logical reasoning. Cognition and Emotion 25(1). 121–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handley, Simon J., Stephen E. Newstead & Dries Trippas. 2011. Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(1). 28–43.Google Scholar
Hanley, James A., Abdissa Negassa, Michael D. deB. Edwardes & Janet E. Forrester. 2003. Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: An orientation. American Journal of Epidemiology 157(4). 364–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasson, Uri. 2004. The role of reasoning in the resolution of inconsistencies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedeker. 2011. Logic and conversation revisited: Evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(8). 1161–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 2001. Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(10). 434–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. & Ruth M. J. Byrne. 2002. Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review 109(4). 646–678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N., Ruth M. Byrne & Walter Schaeken. 1992. Propositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review 99(3). 418–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8(4). 407–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khemlani, Sangeet S. & Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 2011. The need to explain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64(11). 2276–2288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaczynski, Paul A. & Billi Robinson. 2000. Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging 15(3). 400–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberatore, Paolo. 2000. The complexity of belief update. Artificial Intelligence 119(1–2). 141–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markovits, Henry, Janie Brisson, Pier-Luc de Chantal & Valeria A. Thompson. 2017. Interactions between inferential strategies and belief bias. Memory & Cognition 451. 1182–1192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markovits, Henry, Celine Doyon & Michael Simoneau. 2002. Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content. Thinking & Reasoning 8(2). 97–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neuman, Yair, Michael P. Weinstock & Amnon Glasner. 2006. The effect of contextual factors on the judgement of informal reasoning fallacies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59(2). 411–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newstead, Stephen E. 1997. Conditional reasoning with realistic material. Thinking & Reasoning 3(1). 49–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, Mike & Nick Chater. 2001. The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(8). 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özdemir, Barış. 2016. The effect of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on event related potentials under deductive reasoning tasks. Istanbul: Istanbul University PhD dissertation.
Özlem, Doğan. 1999. Mantık [Logic]. Istanbul: Inkılap Kitabevi Publishing.Google Scholar
Peppas, Pavlos, Abhaya Nayak, Maurice Pagnucco, N. Y. Foo, R. Kwok & Mikhail Prokopenko. 1996. Revision vs. update: Taking a closer look. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence 96 1, 95–99. PITMAN.Google Scholar
Politzer, Guy & Laure Carles. 2001. Belief revision and uncertain reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 7(3). 217–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1964. Hypothetical reasoning. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Revlin, Russell, Dustin P. Calvillo & Stephanie Ballard. 2005. Counterfactual reasoning: Resolving inconsistency before your eyes. Psychologica Belgica 45(1). 47–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Revlin, Russell, Dustin P. Calvillo & Patricia Mautone. 2013. Counterfactual reasoning: How to organize a possible world. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Cognitive Science Society, 994–999. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Revlin, Russell, Christina L. Cate & Tena S. Rouss. 2001. Reasoning counterfactually: Combining and rending. Memory & Cognition 291. 1196–1208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricco, Robert B. 2007. Individual differences in the analysis of informal reasoning fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32(3). 459–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Barahona, Cristian A., Sergio Moreno-Ríos, Juan A. García-Madruga & Carla E. Förster. 2023. Content of relationship, number of alternatives and working memory capacity in conditional inferences. Current Psychology 42(8). 6468–6483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J. 2008. Cognitive psychology (5th edn.). Belmont: Wadsworth Press.Google Scholar
Swan, Alexander, Alexandra Chambers & Russell Revlin. 2013. Scope of real beliefs in belief revision. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 35(35). 1414–1419.Google Scholar
Todorov, Alexander, Shelly Chaiken & Marlone D. Henderson. 2002. The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice 231, 195–211. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trippas, Dries, Valerie A. Thompson & Simon J. Handley. 2017. When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias. Memory & Cognition 451. 539–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hoeck, Nicole, Russell Revlin, Kristien Dieussaert & Walter Schaeken. 2012. The development of counterfactual reasoning in belief revision. Psychologica Belgica 52(4). 407–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinstock, Michael P., Yair Neuman & Amnon Glassner. 2006. Identification of informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(2). 327–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Ann G. & Markus Knauff. 2008. The strategy behind belief revision: A matter of judging probability or the use of mental models? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (30)301. 831–836.Google Scholar
. 2009. Familiarity effects and questioning biases in human belief revision. Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2878–2883. Austin, Texas: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Wolf, Ann G., Susann Rieger & Markus Knauff. 2012. The effects of source trustworthiness and inference type on human belief revision. Thinking & Reasoning 18(4). 417–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yangyi, Inyoung Kim & Raymond J. Carroll. 2019. A hybrid omnibus test for generalized semiparametric single-index models with high-dimensional covariate sets. Biometrics 75(3). 757–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar