Phonological and visual distinctiveness effects in syllogistic reasoning: implications for mental models theory.
Two experiments are reported in which the representational distinctiveness of terms within categorical syllogisms was manipulated in order to examine the assumption of mental models theory that abstract, spatially based representations underpin deduction. In Experiment 1, participants evaluated conclusion validity for syllogisms containing either phonologically distinctive terms (e.g., harks, paps, and fids) or phonologically nondistinctive terms (e.g., fuds, fods, and feds). Logical performance was enhanced with the distinctive contents, suggesting that the phonological properties of syllogism terms can play an important role in deduction. In Experiment 2, participants received either the phonological materials from Experiment 1 or syllogisms involving distinctive or nondistinctive visual contents. Logical inference was again enhanced for the distinctive contents, whether phonological or visual in nature. Our findings suggest a broad involvement of multimodal information in syllogistic reasoning and question the assumed primacy of abstract, spatially organized representations in deduction, as is claimed by mental models theorists.
Ball
Linden J
LJ
Lancaster University, Lancaster, England. l.ball@lancaster.ac.uk
Quayle
Jeremy D
JD
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001245:Association Learning; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D005793:Generalization, Psychological; D006801:Humans; D008128:Logic; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010700:Phonetics; D011340:Problem Solving; D011582:Psychological Theory; D011932:Reading; D012660:Semantics; D055815:Young Adult
Mem Cognit. 1982 Mar;10(2):181-7
7087782
Am J Psychol. 1995 Summer;108(2):157-93
7625491
Cognition. 1984 Feb;16(1):1-61
6540648
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Nov 1;4(11):417-423
11058819
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000 Nov;53(4):1202-23
11131820
Cogn Psychol. 1999 Mar;38(2):191-258
10090803
J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Mar;18(3):320-34
16512999
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Dec;13(6):1049-55
17484434
J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 May 15;15(4):559-73
12803967
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1965 Oct;2(4):513-21
5841356
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Jan;59(1):161-77
16556565
Psychol Rev. 2005 Apr;112(2):509-18; discussion 519-20
15783296
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Oct;58(7):1225-47
16194956
Mem Cognit. 1988 May;16(3):196-205
3393080
Br J Psychol. 1964 Nov;55:429-32
14237884
Br J Psychol. 2007 Feb;98(Pt 1):79-92
17227613
Q J Exp Psychol. 1966 Nov;18(4):362-5
5956080
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Nov;57(8):1369-91
15513251
Exp Psychol. 2007;54(2):120-7
17472095
Cognition. 2005 Nov;98(1):B1-9
15992793
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000 Aug;53(3):626-46
10994221
Cognition. 2003 Jan;86(3):223-51
12485739
Exp Psychol. 2006;53(1):77-86
16610275
Mem Cognit. 1986 Jul;14(4):299-307
3762383
Mem Cognit. 1988 Mar;16(2):120-32
3352517
Mem Cognit. 2002 Apr;30(3):363-71
12061757