Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. A theory of utility conditionals: Paralogical reasoning from decision-theoretic leakage.Jean-François Bonnefon - 2009 - Psychological Review 116 (4):888-907.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Propositional reasoning by model.Philip N. Johnson-Laird, Ruth M. Byrne & Walter Schaeken - 1992 - Psychological Review 99 (3):418-439.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   125 citations  
  • Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm.Jonathan Evans - 2002 - Psychological Bulletin 128 (6):978-996.
    The study of deductive reasoning has been a major paradigm in psychology for approximately the past 40 years. Research has shown that people make many logical errors on such tasks and are strongly influenced by problem content and context. It is argued that this paradigm was developed in a context of logicist thinking that is now outmoded. Few reasoning researchers still believe that logic is an appropriate normative system for most human reasoning, let alone a model for describing the process (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   88 citations  
  • Predicting intermediate and multiple conclusions in propositional logic inference problems: Further evidence for a mental logic.Martin D. S. Braine, David P. O'Brien, Ira A. Noveck, Mark C. Samuels, R. Brooke Lea, Shalom M. Fisch & Yingrui Yang - 1995 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124 (3):263.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. [REVIEW]Isabelle Blanchette & Anne Richards - 2010 - Cognition and Emotion 24 (4):561-595.
    In this paper, we examine whether affect influences higher level cognitive processes. We review research on the effect of emotion on interpretation, judgement, decision making, and reasoning. In all cases, we ask first whether there is evidence that emotion affects each of these processes, and second what mechanisms might underlie these effects. Our review highlights the fact that interpretive biases are primarily linked with anxiety, while more general mood-congruent effects may be seen in judgement. Risk perception is also affected by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   56 citations  
  • Deontic Reasoning With Emotional Content: Evolutionary Psychology or Decision Theory?Nick Perham & Mike Oaksford - 2005 - Cognitive Science 29 (5):681-718.
    Three experiments investigated the contrasting predictions of the evolutionary and decision-theoretic approaches to deontic reasoning. Two experiments embedded a hazard management (HM) rule in a social contract scenario that should lead to competition between innate modules. A 3rd experiment used a pure HM task. Threatening material was also introduced into the antecedent, p, of a deontic rule, if p then must q. According to the evolutionary approach, more HM responses (Cosmides & Tooby, 2000) are predicted when p is threatening, whereas (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Toward a Working Definition of Emotion.Kevin Mulligan & Klaus R. Scherer - 2012 - Emotion Review 4 (4):345-357.
    A definition of emotion common to the affective sciences is an urgent desideratum. Lack of such a definition is a constant source of numerous misunderstandings and a series of mostly fruitless debates. There is little hope that there ever will be agreement on a common definition of emotion, given the sacred traditions of the disciplines involved and the egos of the scholars working in these disciplines. Our aim here is more modest. We propose a list of elements for a working (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   47 citations  
  • Utility conditionals as consequential arguments: A random sampling experiment.Jean-François Bonnefon - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):379 - 393.
    Research on reasoning about consequential arguments has been an active but piecemeal enterprise. Previous research considered in depth some subclasses ofconsequential arguments, but further understanding of consequential arguments requires that we address their greater variety, avoiding the risk of over-generalisation from specific examples. Ideally we ought to be able to systematically generate the set of consequential arguments, and then engage in random sampling of stimuli within that set. The current article aims at making steps in that direction, using the theory (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
    Short abstract (98 words). Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given humans’ exceptional dependence on communication and vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   410 citations  
  • Précis of bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning.Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater - 2009 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):69-84.
    According to Aristotle, humans are the rational animal. The borderline between rationality and irrationality is fundamental to many aspects of human life including the law, mental health, and language interpretation. But what is it to be rational? One answer, deeply embedded in the Western intellectual tradition since ancient Greece, is that rationality concerns reasoning according to the rules of logic – the formal theory that specifies the inferential connections that hold with certainty between propositions. Piaget viewed logical reasoning as defining (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   150 citations  
  • A hyper-emotion theory of psychological illnesses.P. N. Johnson-Laird, Francesco Mancini & Amelia Gangemi - 2006 - Psychological Review 113 (4):822-841.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Human rationality and the psychology of reasoning: Where do we go from here?Nick Chater & Mike Oaksford - 2001 - British Journal of Psychology 92 (1):193-216.
    British psychologists have been at the forefront of research into human reasoning for 40 years. This article describes some past research milestones within this tradition before outlining the major theoretical positions developed in the UK. Most British reasoning researchers have contributed to one or more of these positions. We identify a common theme that is emerging in all these approaches, that is, the problem of explaining how prior general knowledge affects reasoning. In our concluding comments we outline the challenges for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Anxiety and working memory capacity.Shane Darke - 1988 - Cognition and Emotion 2 (2):145-154.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Working Memory Capacity in High Trait-anxious and Repressor Groups.Nazanin Derakshan Michael W. Eysenck - 1998 - Cognition and Emotion 12 (5):697-713.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The probabilistic approach to human reasoning.Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater - 2001 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (8):349-357.
    A recent development in the cognitive science of reasoning has been the emergence of a probabilistic approach to the behaviour observed on ostensibly logical tasks. According to this approach the errors and biases documented on these tasks occur because people import their everyday uncertain reasoning strategies into the laboratory. Consequently participants' apparently irrational behaviour is the result of comparing it with an inappropriate logical standard. In this article, we contrast the probabilistic approach with other approaches to explaining rationality, and then (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   64 citations