Complexity of categorical syllogisms: An integration of two metrics

T. Zielinski, Geoffrey P. Goodwin, G. Halford
{"title":"Complexity of categorical syllogisms: An integration of two metrics","authors":"T. Zielinski, Geoffrey P. Goodwin, G. Halford","doi":"10.1080/09541440902830509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The complexity of categorical syllogisms was assessed using the relational complexity metric, which is based on the number of entities that are related in a single cognitive representation. This was compared with number of mental models in an experiment in which adult participants solved all 64 syllogisms. Both metrics accounted for similarly large proportions of the variance, showing that complexity depends on the number of categories that are related in a representation of the combined premises, whether represented in multiple mental models, or by a single model. This obviates the difficulty with mental models theory due to equivocal evidence for construction of more than one mental model. The “no valid conclusion” response was used for complex syllogisms that had valid conclusions. The results are interpreted as showing that the relational complexity metric can be applied to syllogistic reasoning, and can be integrated with mental models theory, which together account for a wide range of cognitive performances.","PeriodicalId":88321,"journal":{"name":"The European journal of cognitive psychology","volume":"22 1","pages":"391 - 421"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European journal of cognitive psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440902830509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

The complexity of categorical syllogisms was assessed using the relational complexity metric, which is based on the number of entities that are related in a single cognitive representation. This was compared with number of mental models in an experiment in which adult participants solved all 64 syllogisms. Both metrics accounted for similarly large proportions of the variance, showing that complexity depends on the number of categories that are related in a representation of the combined premises, whether represented in multiple mental models, or by a single model. This obviates the difficulty with mental models theory due to equivocal evidence for construction of more than one mental model. The “no valid conclusion” response was used for complex syllogisms that had valid conclusions. The results are interpreted as showing that the relational complexity metric can be applied to syllogistic reasoning, and can be integrated with mental models theory, which together account for a wide range of cognitive performances.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直言三段论的复杂性:两个度量的整合
使用关系复杂性度量来评估直言三段论的复杂性,该度量基于单个认知表征中相关实体的数量。这与一个实验中的心智模型数量进行了比较,在这个实验中,成年参与者解决了所有64个三段论。这两种度量标准对方差的影响相似,表明复杂性取决于在组合前提的表示中相关的类别的数量,无论是在多个心智模型中表示,还是在单个模型中表示。这消除了由于构建多个心理模型的模糊证据而导致的心理模型理论的困难。“无有效结论”的回答用于有有效结论的复杂三段论。结果表明,关系复杂性度量可以应用于三段论推理,并可以与心理模型理论相结合,两者共同解释了广泛的认知表现。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What are the Bayesian constraints in the Bayesian reader? Reply to Norris and Kinoshita (2010) Explanation versus accommodation: Reply to Bowers (2010) Assessing changes in performance and monitoring processes in individual and collaborative tests according to students' metacognitive skills The contribution of familiarity to within- and between-domain associative recognition memory: Use of a modified remember/know procedure Does masked and unmasked priming reflect Bayesian inference as implemented in the Bayesian Reader?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1