Individual differences in syllogistic reasoning: deduction rules or mental models?
Individual differences in syllogistic reasoning: deduction rules or mental models?
复制标题
三段论推理的个体差异：演绎规则还是心智模型？
DOI：
10.1037//0096-3445.115.1.16
复制
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sabini,JP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Galotti,KM;Baron,J;Sabini,JP
进行了2个实验，以检查的相关性的推理能力在一个三段论推理任务的学生谁缺乏正式的逻辑背景，侧重于在何种程度上的推理能力产生的考虑多种可能的集合关系（心理模型），而不是显式或隐式依赖于演绎规则。实验一调查了好的和差的推理者之间的差异是否发生在推理过程的早期或晚期。24名大学生，被指定为好或差的读者，被要求解决16个三段论。在实验II中，16名优秀和15名较差的本科推理者和7名逻辑学研究生被要求陈述他们对三段论正确结论的最初印象。总体研究结果揭示了使用模型和规则的证据。虽然好的和差的推理不同，即使施加时间限制，与假设的一套更好的规则之间的良好的推理，良好的推理表现出更多的改善，并选择采取更长的时间量时，时间限制被删除，这表明他们认为更多的替代品比穷人的推理。这两组学生与有逻辑经验的学生之间的比较显示，在准确性和速度上都有显着差异。(34参考）（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2016阿帕，保留所有权利）
Conducted 2 experiments to examine the correlates of reasoning ability on a syllogistic reasoning task in Ss who lacked formal background in logic, focusing on the extent to which reasoning proficiency arises from the consideration of multiple possible set relations (mental models) as opposed to explicit or implicit reliance on deduction rules. Exp I investigated whether differences between good and poor reasoners occurred early or late in the process of reasoning. 24 undergraduates, designated as good or poor readers, were presented with 16 syllogisms to solve. In Exp II, 16 good and 15 poor undergraduate reasoners and 7 graduate students who had studied logic were asked to state their initial impression of the correct conclusion to a syllogism. Overall findings reveal evidence for the use of both models and rules. Although good and poor reasoners differed even when time constraints were imposed, consistent with the supposition of a better set of rules among good reasoners, good reasoners showed more improvement and chose to take longer amounts of time when time constraints were removed, suggesting that they considered more alternatives than did the poor reasoners. A comparison between these 2 groups and Ss with experience in logic revealed striking differences in both accuracy and speed.(34 ref)(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)