Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 31:1 (2024) ► pp.205–243

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

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

 | Maltepe University
 | Maltepe University
Published online: 11 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00045.ozd
Abstract
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.
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
  • References
References (51)
References
Barnoy, Aviv & Zvi Reich. 2022. Trusting others: A pareto distribution of source and message credibility among news reporters. Communication Research 49(2). 196–220.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beller, Sieghard, Andrea Bender & Gregory Kuhnmünch. 2005. Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking & Reasoning 11(3). 209–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanchette, Isabelle & Serge Caparos. 2018. When emotions improve reasoning: The possible roles of relevance and utility. In Shira Elqayam, Jean-François Bonnefon & David Over (eds.), New paradigm psychology of reasoning: Basic and applied perspectives, 163–177. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briñol, Pablo & Richard E. Petty. 2009. Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology 20(1). 49–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrne, Ruth M. J. & Clare R. Walsh. 2002. Contradictions and counterfactuals: Generating belief revisions in conditional inference. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 241, 160–165.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dieussaert, Kristien, Walter Schaeken, Walter Schroyens & Gery D’Ydewalle. 2000. Strategies during complex conditional inferences. Thinking & Reasoning 6(2). 125–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elio, Renée & Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1997. Belief change as propositional update. Cognitive Science 21(4). 419–460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T. 2002. Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin 128(6). 978–996. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & David E. Over. 2004. If: Supposition, pragmatics, and dual processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St B. T. & Joanna Twyman-Musgrove. 1998. Conditional reasoning with inducements and advice. Cognition 69(1). B11–B16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flanagin, Andrew J., Stephan Winter & Miriam J. Metzger. 2018. Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society 23(7). 1038–1056.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goel, Vinod, Christian Buchel, Chris Frith & Raymond J. Dolan. 2000. Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. Neuroimage 12(5). 504–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goel, Vinod & Oshin Vartanian. 2011. Negative emotions can attenuate the influence of beliefs on logical reasoning. Cognition and Emotion 25(1). 121–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 2001. Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(10). 434–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. & Ruth M. J. Byrne. 2002. Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review 109(4). 646–678. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N., Ruth M. Byrne & Walter Schaeken. 1992. Propositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review 99(3). 418–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8(4). 407–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khemlani, Sangeet S. & Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 2011. The need to explain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64(11). 2276–2288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Miriam J. 2007. Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(13). 2078–2091.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newstead, Stephen E. 1997. Conditional reasoning with realistic material. Thinking & Reasoning 3(1). 49–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oaksford, Mike & Nick Chater. 2001. The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(8). 349–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Politzer, Guy & Laure Carles. 2001. Belief revision and uncertain reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 7(3). 217–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1964. Hypothetical reasoning. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Revlin, Russell, Dustin P. Calvillo & Stephanie Ballard. 2005. Counterfactual reasoning: Resolving inconsistency before your eyes. Psychologica Belgica 45(1). 47–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Revlin, Russell, Dustin P. Calvillo & Patricia Mautone. 2013. Counterfactual reasoning: How to organize a possible world. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 251, 994–999.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Revlin, Russell, Christina L. Cate & Tena S. Rouss. 2001. Reasoning counterfactually: Combining and rending. Memory & Cognition 291. 1196–1208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sparks, Jesse R. & David N. Rapp. 2011. Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(1). 230–247.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J. 2008. Cognitive psychology (5th edn.). Belmont: Wadsworth Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swan, Alexander, Alexandra Chambers & Russell Revlin. 2013. Scope of real beliefs in belief revision. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 351, 1414–1419.Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 195–211. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, Ann G. & Markus Knauff. 2008. The strategy behind belief revision: A matter of judging probability or the use of mental models? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 301, 831–836.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Familiarity effects and questioning biases in human belief revision. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 311, 2878–2883.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Stoffelsma, Lieke, Isaac N. Mwinlaaru & Wilbert Spooren
2025. Testing university students’ morphological awareness of English as a second-language. System 130 ► pp. 103626 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue