Uncontrolled logic: intuitive sensitivity to logical structure in random responding

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
S. Howarth, S. Handley, V. Polito
{"title":"Uncontrolled logic: intuitive sensitivity to logical structure in random responding","authors":"S. Howarth, S. Handley, V. Polito","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2021.1934119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is well established that beliefs provide powerful cues that influence reasoning. Over the last decade research has revealed that judgments based upon logical structure may also pre-empt deliberative reasoning. Evidence for ‘intuitive logic’ has been claimed using a range of measures (i.e. confidence ratings or latency of response on conflict problems). However, it is unclear how well such measures genuinely reflect logical intuition. In this paper we introduce a new method designed to test for evidence of intuitive logic. In two experiments participants were asked to make random judgments about the logical validity of a series of simple and complex syllogistic arguments. For simple arguments there was an effect of logical validity on random responding, which was absent for complex arguments. These findings provide a novel demonstration that people are intuitively sensitive to logical structure.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"8 1","pages":"61 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1934119","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Abstract It is well established that beliefs provide powerful cues that influence reasoning. Over the last decade research has revealed that judgments based upon logical structure may also pre-empt deliberative reasoning. Evidence for ‘intuitive logic’ has been claimed using a range of measures (i.e. confidence ratings or latency of response on conflict problems). However, it is unclear how well such measures genuinely reflect logical intuition. In this paper we introduce a new method designed to test for evidence of intuitive logic. In two experiments participants were asked to make random judgments about the logical validity of a series of simple and complex syllogistic arguments. For simple arguments there was an effect of logical validity on random responding, which was absent for complex arguments. These findings provide a novel demonstration that people are intuitively sensitive to logical structure.
非控制逻辑:在随机响应中对逻辑结构的直觉敏感性
众所周知,信念提供了影响推理的有力线索。过去十年的研究表明,基于逻辑结构的判断也可能优先于审慎推理。“直觉逻辑”的证据已经通过一系列的测量(例如,对冲突问题的信心评级或反应延迟)来证明。然而,目前尚不清楚这些衡量标准在多大程度上真正反映了逻辑直觉。本文介绍了一种检验直觉逻辑证据的新方法。在两个实验中,参与者被要求对一系列简单和复杂的三段论论证的逻辑有效性做出随机判断。对于简单的参数有一个逻辑有效性对随机响应的影响,这是缺乏对复杂参数。这些发现提供了一个新的证明,即人们对逻辑结构具有直观的敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信