The suppression of Modus Ponens as a case of pragmatic preconditional reasoning

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 21-40

  Bonnefon, Jean Francois ^a   Hilton, Denis J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85068298357     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546780143000134     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Bonatti, L., 1994. Why should we abandon the mental logic hypothesis?. Cognition, 50: 17–39.
2. Braine, M. D. S., 1978. On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic. Psychological review, 85: 1–21.
3. Biaine, M. D. S., 1990. “ The “natural logic” approach to reasoning ”. In Reasoning, necessity, and logic, developmental perspectives, Edited by: Overtoil, W. F., 153–157. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
4. Braine, M. D. S., and O'Brien, D. P., 1991. A theory of if: A lexical entry, reasoning program, and pragmatic principles. Psychological Review, 98: 182–203.
5. Byrne, R. M. J., 1989. Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition, 31: 61–83.
6. Byrne, R. M. J., 1991. Can valid inferences be suppressed?. Cognition, 39: 71–78.
7. Byrne, R. M. J., Espino, O., and Santamaria, C., 1998. Context can suppress inferences. Analise Psicologica,: 201–214.
8. Byrne, R. M. J., Espino, O., and Santamaria, C., 1999. Counterexamples and the suppression of inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 40: 347–373.
9. Chan, D., and Chua, F., 1994. Suppression of valid inferences: Syntactic views, mental models, and relative salience. Cognition, 53: 217–238.
10. Cummins, D. D., 1995. Naive theories and causal deduction. Memory and Cognition, 23: 646–658.
11. Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., and Rist, R., 1991. Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory and Cognition, 19: 274–282.
12. Dieussaert, K., Schaeken, W., Schroyens, W., and d'Ydewalle, G., 1999. Strategies for dealing with complex deductive problems: Combining and dividing. Psychologica Belgica, 39 (4): 215–234.
13. Dieussaert, K., Schaeken, W., Schroyens, W., and d'Ydewalle, G., 2000. Strategies during complex conditional inferences. Thinking and Reasoning, 6 (2): 125–160.
14. DuIany, D. L., and Hilton, D. J., 1991. Conversational implicature, conscious representation and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9: 85–100.
15. Evans, J. St. B. T., 1977. Linguistic factors in reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29: 297–306.
16. Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., and Byrne, R. M. J., 1993. Human reasoning, Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
17. Evans, J. St. B. T., and Over, D. E., 1996. Rationality and reasoning, Hove: Psychology Press.
18. Fillenbaum, S., 1993. Deductive reasoning: What are taken to be the premises and how are they interpreted?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16: 348–349.
19. Geis, M. L., and Zwicky, A., 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2: 561–566.
20. George, C., 1995. The endorsement of the premises: Assumption-based or belief-based reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 86: 93–111.
21. George, C., 1997. Polymorphisme du Raisonnement Humain, Paris: PUF.
22. George, C., 1997b. Reasoning with uncertain premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 3: 161–189.
23. George, C., 1999. Evaluation of the plausibility of a conclusion derivable from several premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 5 (3): 245–281.
24. Grice, H. P., 1975. “ Logic and conversation ”. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, Edited by: Cole, P., and Morgan, J. L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
25. Grice, H. P., 1978. “ Further notes on logic and conversation ”. In Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, Edited by: Cole, P., 113–128. New York: Academic Press.
26. Grice, H. P., 1989. Studies in the way of words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Hilton, D. J., 1990. Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 65–81.
28. Hilton, D. J., 1995. The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgement. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 248–271.
29. Hilton, D. J., and Slugoski, B. R., 2000. “ The conversational perspective on explanation and reasoning ”. In Blackwell handbook of social psychology. VoI 1: Intrapersonal processes, Edited by: Tesser, A., and Schwarz, N., Oxford: Blackwell.
30. Hilton, D. J., and Slugoski, B. R., 2000. “ Discourse processes and rational inference: Judgement and decision-making in a social context ”. In Judgement and decision-making: A reader, Edited by: Connolly, T., Arkes, H., and Hammonds, K. R., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Horn, L. R., 2000. From if to iff: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (3): 289–326.
32. Johnson-Laird, P. N., and Byrne, R. M. J., 1991. Deduction, Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
33. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Byrne, R. M. J., and Schaeken, W., 1992. Prepositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review, 99: 418–439.
34. Kern, L. H., Mirels, H. L., and Hinshaw, V. G., 1983. Scientists' understanding of prepositional logic: An experimental investigation. Social Studies of Sciences, 13: 131–146.
35. Leddo, J., Abelson, R. P., and Gross, P. H., 1984. Conjunctive explanations: When two reasons are better than one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 933–943.
36. Levinson, S. C., 1983. Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Liu, I., Lo, K., and Wu, J., 1996. A probabilistic interpretation of “If-then. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A: 828–844.
38. Marcus, S. L., and Rips, L. J., 1979. Conditional reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18: 199–223.
39. Markovits, H., 1984. Awareness of the “possible” as a mediator of formal thinking in conditional reasoning problems. British Journal of Psychology, 75: 367–376.
40. Markovits, H., 1985. Incorrect conditional reasoning among adults: Competence or performance?. British Journal of Psychology, 76: 241–247.
41. Markovits, H., 1988. Conditional reasoning, representation, and empirical evidence on a concrete task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A: 483–495.
42. McClure, J. L., and Hilton, D. J., 1997. For you can't always get what you want: When preconditions are better explanations than goals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36: 223–240.
43. McClure, J. L., and Hilton, D. J., 1998. Are goals or preconditions better explanations? It depends on the question. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28: 897–911.
44. McClure, J. L., Lalljee, M., Jaspars, J., and Abelson, R. P., 1989. Conjunctive explanations of success and failure: The effects of different types of causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 19–26.
45. Nagy, L. K., Pragmatics meets reasoning: The interpretation of conditional utterances. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp. 996
46. Neth, H., and Beller, S., How knowledge interferes with reasoning — Suppression effects by content and context. Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp. 468–473. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
47. Oaksford, M., Chafer, N., and Larkin, J., 2000. Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26 (4): 883–899.
48. Over, D., 1993. Deduction and degrees of belief. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16: 361–362.
49. Politzer, G., 1997. Rationality and pragmatics. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16 (1–2): 190–195.
50. Politzer, G., 2000. “ Premise interpretation in conditional reasoning ”. In Reasoning and decision making: A handbook, Edited by: Hardman, D., and Macchi, L., Chichester, UK: Wiley.
51. Politzer, G., and Bourmeau, G., 2001. Deductive reasoning with uncertain conditionals. British Journal of Psychology.
52. Politzer, G., and Braine, M. D. S., 1991. Responses to inconsistent premises cannot count as suppression of valid inferences. Cognition, 38: 103–108.
53. Politzer, G., and Macchi, L., 2000. Reasoning and Pragmatics. Mind & Society, 1 (1): 73–93.
54. Rips, L. J., 1983. Cognitive processes in prepositional reasoning. Psychological Review, 90: 38–71.
55. Rips, L. J., 1994. The psychology of proof, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Rumain, B., Connell, J., and Braine, M. D. S., 1983. Conversational comprehension processes aie responsible for reasoning fallacies in children as well as adults: IF is not the biconditional. Developmental Psychology, 19: 471–481.
57. Smith, E. E., Langsten, C., and Nisbett, R., 1992. The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16: 1–40.
58. Stevenson, R. J., and Over, D. E., 1995. Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A: 613–643.
59. Taplin, J. E., 1971. Reasoning with conditional sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12: 530–542.
60. Tetlock, P. E., Lerner, J. S., and Boettger, R., 1996. The dilution effect: Judgemental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26: 915–934.
61. Thompson, V. A., 1994. Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 21: 742–758.
62. Thompson, V. A., 1995. Conditional reasoning: The necessity and sufficiency conditions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49: 1–58.
63. Vadeboncoeur, I., and Markovits, H., 1999. The effect of instructions and information retrieval on accepting the premises in a conditional reasoning task. Thinking and Reasoning, 5 (2): 97–113.
64. van der Auwera, J., 1997. “ Conditional perfection ”. In On conditionals aga, Edited by: Athanasiadou, A., and Dirven, R., 169–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
65. Wildman, T. M., and Fletcher, H. J., 1977. Developmental increases and decreases in solutions of conditional syllogism problems. Developmental Psychology, 13: 630–636.