Thinking and Reasoning 8 (3):193 – 203 (2002)
AbstractResearchers currently working on relational reasoning typically argue that mental model theory (MMT) is a better account than the inference rule approach (IRA). They predict and observe that determinate (or one-model) problems are easier than indeterminate (or two-model) problems, whereas according to them, IRA should lead to the opposite prediction. However, the predictions attributed to IRA are based on a mistaken argument. The IRA is generally presented in such a way that inference rules only deal with determinate relations and not with indeterminate ones. However, (a) there is no reason to presuppose that a rule-based procedure could not deal with indeterminate relations, and (b) applying a rule-based procedure to indeterminate relations should result in greater difficulty. Hence, none of the recent articles devoted to relational reasoning currently presents a conclusive case for discarding IRA by using the well-known determinate vs indeterminate problems comparison.
Similar books and articles
A Mental Model Analysis of Young Children's Conditional Reasoning with Meaningful Premises.Henry Markovits - 2000 - Thinking and Reasoning 6 (4):335 – 347.
Reasoning About Relations: Spatial and Nonspatial Problems.Manuel Carreiras & Carlos Santamaria - 1997 - Thinking and Reasoning 3 (3):191 – 208.
Evidence for Mental-Model-Based Reasoning: A Comparison of Reasoning with Time and Space Concepts.Andre Vandierendonck - 1996 - Thinking and Reasoning 2 (4):249 – 272.
Is the Self-Organizing Consciousness Framework Compatible with Human Deductive Reasoning?Pierre Barrouillet & Henry Markovits - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):330-331.
Relational Integration in Older Adults.Indre V. Viskontas, Keith J. Holyoak & Barbara J. Knowlton - 2005 - Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):390 – 410.
Children's Reasoning in Solving Relational Problems of Deduction.Lyn D. English - 1998 - Thinking and Reasoning 4 (3):249 – 281.
Predicting the Difficulty of Complex Logical Reasoning Problems.Stephen E. Newstead, Peter Bradon, Simon J. Handley, Ian Dennis & Jonathan St B. T. Evans - 2006 - Thinking and Reasoning 12 (1):62 – 90.
Structural Constraints and Object Similarity in Analogical Mapping and Inference.Daniel C. Krawczyk, Keith J. Holyoak & John E. Hummel - 2004 - Thinking and Reasoning 10 (1):85 – 104.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Reasoning About Relations.Geoffrey P. Goodwin & Philip Johnson-Laird - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (2):468-493.
The Wording of Conclusions in Relational Reasoning.Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst & Walter Schaeken - 2005 - Cognition 97 (1):1-22.
Counterexample Search in Diagram‐Based Geometric Reasoning.Yacin Hamami, John Mumma & Marie Amalric - 2021 - Cognitive Science 45 (4):e12959.
References found in this work
The Psychology of Proof: Deductive Reasoning in Human Thinking.Lance J. Rips - 1994 - MIT Press.
Propositional Reasoning by Model.Philip N. Johnson-Laird, Ruth M. Byrne & Walter Schaeken - 1992 - Psychological Review 99 (3):418-439.