The effects of source trustworthiness and inference type on human belief revision

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 417-440

  Wolf, Ann G ^a   Rieger, Susann ^a   Knauff, Markus ^a  

^a JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Belief revision; Conditional probability hypothesis; Mental models; Mismatch principle; Source trustworthiness

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867558406     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.677757     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50: 510-530.
2. Bonnefon, J. F. and Hilton, D. J. 2004. Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valued outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30,: 28-37.
3. Byrne, R. M. J. 1989. Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition, 39: 71-78.
4. Byrne, R. M. J. and Walsh, C. R. 2005. "Resolving contradictions". In The shape of reason: Essays in honour of Paolo Legrenzi, Edited by: Girotto, V. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
5. Chun, K-T., Campbell, J. B. and Yoo, J-H. 1975. Perceived trustworthiness of occupations: Personality effects and cross-cultural generalisability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6: 430-443.
6. Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O. and Rist, R. 1991. Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory and Cognition, 19: 274-282.
7. Dieussaert, K., Schaeken, W., De Neys, W. and d'Ydewalle, G. 2000. Initial belief state as a predictor of belief revision. Current Psychology of Cognition, 19: 277-286.
8. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W. and Chaiken, S. 1978. Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 424-435.
9. Elio, R. 1997. "What to believe when inferences are contradicted: The impact of knowledge type and inference rule". In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 211-216. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
10. Elio, R. and Pelletier, F. J. 1997. Belief change as propositional update. Cognitive Science, 21: 419-460.
11. Evans, J. St. B. T. 2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgement, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59,: 255-278.
12. Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., Hadjchristidis, C., Thompson, V., Over, D. E. and Bennet, S. 2007. On the basis of belief in causal and diagnostic conditionals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60: 635-643.
13. Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J. and Over, D. E. 2003. Conditionals and conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29,: 321-335.
14. Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. and Byrne, R. M. J. 1993. Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction, 310Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
15. Evans, J. St. B. T. and Over, D. E. 1996. Rationality and reasoning, Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
16. Evans, J. St. B. T. and Over, D. E. 2004. If, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17. Fugard, A. J. B., Pfeifer, N., Mayerhofer, B. and Kleiter, G. D. 2011. How people interpret conditionals: Shifts toward the conditional event. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37,: 635-648.
18. Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in flux, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. George, C. 1999. Evaluation of the plausibility of a conclusion derivable from several arguments with uncertain premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 5: 245-281.
20. Girotto, V. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2004. The probability of conditionals. Psychologia, 47: 207-225.
21. Harman, G. 1986. Change in view, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Hasson, U. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2003. "Why believability cannot explain belief revision". In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Alterman, R. and Kirsh, D. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
23. Hovland, C. I. and Weiss, W. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15: 635-650.
24. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2006. "Beliefs, heresies, and changes in mind". In How we reason, Edited by: Johnson-Laird, P. N. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Johnson-Laird, P. N. and Byrne, R. M. J. 2002. Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109: 211-228.
26. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Byrne, R. M. J. and Girotto, V. 2009. The mental model theory of conditionals: A reply to Guy Politzer. Topoi, 28: 75-80.
27. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Girotto, V. and Legrenzi, P. 2004. Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency. Psychological Review, 111: 640-661.
28. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P. and Girotto, V. 2004. How we detect logical inconsistencies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13: 41-45.
29. Kelman, H. C. and Hovland, C. I. 1953. "Reinstatement" of the communicator in delayedmeasurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48: 327-335.
30. Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2003. Models of consistency. Psychological Science, 14: 131-137.
31. Liu, I-M., Lo, K-C. and Wu, J-T. 1996. A probabilistic interpretation of "If-Then". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A,: 828-844.
32. Manktelow, K. I. and Fairley, N. 2000. Superordinate principles in reasoning with causal and deontic conditionals. Thinking & Reasoning, 6: 41-65.
33. Marcus, S. L. and Rips, L. J. 1979. Conditional reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 199-223.
34. Markman, K. D. and McMullen, M. N. 2003. A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 244-267.
35. Mills, J. and Jellison, J. M. 1967. Effect on opinion change of how desirable the communication is to the audience the communicator addressed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 98-101.
36. Mussweiler, T. 2003. Comparison processes in social judgement: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110: 472-489.
37. Oaksford, M. and Chater, N. 1991. Against logicist cognitive science. Mind and Language, 6: 1-38.
38. Oaksford, M. and Chater, N. 2001. The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5: 349-357.
39. Oaksford, M. and Chater, N. 2007. Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40. Oaksford, M. and Chater, N. 2009. Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32: 69-120.
41. Oaksford, M., Chater, N. and Larkin, J. 2000. Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26,: 883-899.
42. Oberauer, K. and Wilhelm, O. 2003. The meaning(s) of conditionals: Conditional probabilities, mental models, and personal utilities. Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29,: 680-693.
43. Over, D. E. and Evans, J. St. B. T. 2003. The probability of conditionals: The psychological evidence. Mind & Language, 18: 340-358.
44. Over, D. E., Hadjichristidis, C., Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J. and Sloman, S. A. 2007. The probability of causal conditionals. Cognitive Psychology, 54: 62-97.
45. Politzer, G. and Bourmaud, G. 2002. Deductive reasoning from uncertain conditionals. British Journal of Psychology, 93: 345-381.
46. Politzer, G. and Carles, L. 2001. Belief revision and uncertain reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 7: 217-234.
47. Priester, J. R. and Petty, R. E. 1995. Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty asadeterminant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 637-654.
48. Ramsey, F. P. 1990. "General propositions and causality [original publication, 1929]". In Philosophical papers, Edited by: Mellor, D. H. 145-163. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49. Rotter, J. B. and Stein, D. K. 1971. Public attitudes toward the trustworthiness, competence, and altruism of twenty selected occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1: 334-343.
50. Ryckman, R. M. and Sherman, M. F. 1974. Locus of control and attitudes of workers and college students toward members of selected occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4: 351-364.
51. Stevenson, R. J. and Over, D. E. 1995. Deduction from uncertain premises. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 48A,: 613-643.
52. Stevenson, R. J. and Over, D. E. 2001. Reasoning from uncertain premises: Effects of expertise and conversational context. Thinking & Reasoning, 7: 367-390.
53. Thompson, V. A. 1994. Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22: 742-758.
54. Tormala, Z. L. and Petty, R. E. 2007. Contextual contrast and perceived knowledge: Exploring the implications for persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43: 17-30.
55. Wolf, A. G. and Knauff, M. 2008. "The strategy behind belief revision: A matter of judging probability or the use of mental models". In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Love, B. C., McRae, K. and Sloutsky, V. M. 831-836. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
56. Wolf, A. G. and Knauff, M. 2009. "Familiarity effects and questioning biases in human belief revision". In Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Taatgen, N. A. and van Rijn, H. 2878-2883. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.