title: Intuitive logic revisited: new data and a Bayesian mixed model meta-analysis.
abstract: Recent research on syllogistic reasoning suggests that the logical status (valid vs. invalid) of even difficult syllogisms can be intuitively detected via differences in conceptual fluency between logically valid and invalid syllogisms when participants are asked to rate how much they like a conclusion following from a syllogism (Morsanyi & Handley, 2012). These claims of an intuitive logic are at odds with most theories on syllogistic reasoning which posit that detecting the logical status of difficult syllogisms requires effortful and deliberate cognitive processes. We present new data replicating the effects reported by Morsanyi and Handley, but show that this effect is eliminated when controlling for a possible confound in terms of conclusion content. Additionally, we reanalyze three studies (n = 287) without this confound with a Bayesian mixed model meta-analysis (i.e., controlling for participant and item effects) which provides evidence for the null-hypothesis and against Morsanyi and Handley's claim.
authors.affiliation: Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
authors.forename: Henrik
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Singmann
authors.affiliation: Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
authors.forename: Karl Christoph
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Klauer
authors.affiliation: Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Kellen
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D006801:Humans; D019545:Intuition; D008128:Logic; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D008875:Middle Aged; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2002 Nov;128(6):978-96
references.pmid: 12405140
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Jul;39(4):1265-73
references.pmid: 23088550
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Jan;7(1):28-38
references.pmid: 26168420
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Apr;17(4):172-8
references.pmid: 23490722
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2012 May;138(3):427-57
references.pmid: 22289108
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Apr;20(2):269-73
references.pmid: 23417270
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 Feb;138(1):39-63
references.pmid: 19203169
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Mar;36(2):298-323
references.pmid: 20192533
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Aug;15(4):713-31
references.pmid: 18792498
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Mar;100(3):426-32
references.pmid: 21280965
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1983 May;11(3):295-306
references.pmid: 6621345
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jul;103(1):54-69
references.pmid: 22612667
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2011 Nov;63(3):107-40
references.pmid: 21798215
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
references.pmid: 24403724
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 26;110(48):19313-7
references.pmid: 24218581
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2000 Oct;107(4):852-84
references.pmid: 11089409
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 May;6(3):291-8
references.pmid: 26168519
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2007 Feb;54(1):62-97
references.pmid: 16839539
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 May;38(3):596-616
references.pmid: 22060275
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2005 Aug;37(3):379-84
references.pmid: 16405133
references.citation: Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
references.pmid: 17835457
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2012 Mar;44(1):158-75
references.pmid: 21858605
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2009 Apr;116(2):439-53
references.pmid: 19348549
references.citation: Science. 1966 Aug 5;153(3736):652-4
references.pmid: 5939936
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;81(6):989-1000
references.pmid: 11761320
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41
references.pmid: 26172965
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):779-804
references.pmid: 18087943
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Jan;37(1):28-43
references.pmid: 21058879
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1248-99
references.pmid: 17631876