English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Modality, probability, and mental models

Hinterecker, T., Knauff, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. (2016). Modality, probability, and mental models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1606-1620. doi:10.1037/xlm0000255.

Item is

Basic

show hide
Item Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0000-7963-9 Version Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0000-7964-8
Genre: Journal Article

Files

show Files

Locators

show
hide
Locator:
Link (Any fulltext)
Description:
-

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Hinterecker, T1, 2, 3, 4, Author              
Knauff, M4, Author              
Johnson-Laird, PN, Author
Affiliations:
1Project group: Social & Spatial Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society, ou_2528706              
2Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society, ou_1497794              
3Project group: Motion Perception & Simulation, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society, ou_2528705              
4Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society, ou_1497797              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: -
 Abstract: We report 3 experiments investigating novel sorts of inference, such as: A or B or both. Therefore, possibly (A and B). Where the contents were sensible assertions, for example, Space tourism will achieve widespread popularity in the next 50 years or advances in material science will lead to the development of antigravity materials in the next 50 years, or both. Most participants accepted the inferences as valid, though they are invalid in modal logic and in probabilistic logic too. But, the theory of mental models predicts that individuals should accept them. In contrast, inferences of this sort—A or B but not both. Therefore, A or B or both—are both logically valid and probabilistically valid. Yet, as the model theory also predicts, most reasoners rejected them. The participants’ estimates of probabilities showed that their inferences tended not to be based on probabilistic validity, but that they did rate acceptable conclusions as more probable than unacceptable conclusions. We discuss the implications of the results for current theories of reasoning.

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 2016-10
 Publication Status: Published in print
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Method: -
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000255
BibTex Citekey: HintereckerKJ2016
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: -
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 42 (10) Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 1606 - 1620 Identifier: -