Much research in the last two decades has demonstrated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision making and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be interpreted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational (...) limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experimenter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the modal response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implications of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance errors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations underlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Unexpected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate. Key Words: biases; descriptive models; heuristics; individual differences; normative models; rationality; reasoning. (shrink)

A key question for cognitive theories of reasoning is whether logical reasoning is inherently a sentential linguistic process or a process requiring spatial manipulation and search. We addressed this question in an event-related fMRI study of syllogistic reasoning, using sentences with and without semantic content. Our findings indicate involvement of two dissociable networks in deductive reasoning. During content-based reasoning a left hemisphere temporal system was recruited. By contrast, a formally identical reasoning task, which lacked semantic content, activated a parietal system. (...) The two systems share common components in bilateral basal ganglia nuclei, right cerebellum, bilateral fusiform gyri, and left prefrontal cortex. We conclude that syllogistic reasoning is implemented in two distinct systems whose engagement is primarily a function of the presence or absence of semantic content. Furthermore, when a logical argument results in a belief–logic conflict, the nature of the reasoning process is changed by recruitment of the right prefrontal cortex. (shrink)

Distinctions have been proposed between systems of reasoning for centuries. This article distills properties shared by many of these distinctions and characterizes the resulting systems in light of recent findings and theoretical developments. One system is associative because its computations reflect similarity structure and relations of temporal contiguity. The other is "rule based" because it operates on symbolic structures that have logical content and variables and because its computations have the properties that are normally assigned to rules. The systems serve (...) complementary functions and can simultaneously generate different solutions to a reasoning problem. The rule-based system can suppress the associative system but not completely inhibit it. The article reviews evidence in favor of the distinction and its characterization. (shrink)

One of the important questions cognitive theories of reasoning must address is whether logical reasoning is inherently sentential or spatial. A sentential model would exploit nonspatial properties of representations whereas a spatial model would exploit spatial properties of representations. In general terms, the linguistic hypothesis predicts that the language processing regions underwrite human reasoning processes, and the spatial hypothesis suggests that the neural structures for perception and motor control contribute the basic representational building blocks used for high-level logical and linguistic (...) reasoning. We carried out a [15O] H2O PET imaging study to address this issue. (shrink)

Much of the cognitive lies beyond articulate, discursive thought, beyond the reach of current computational notions. In Sketches of Thought, Vinod Goel argues that the cognitive computational conception of the world requires our thought processes to be precise, rigid, discrete, and unambiguous; yet there are dense, ambiguous, and amorphous symbol systems, like sketching, painting, and poetry, found in the arts and much of everyday discourse that have an important, non-trivial place in cognition. Goel maintains that while on occasion our thoughts (...) do conform to the current computational theory of mind, they often are - indeed must be - vague, fluid, ambiguous, and amorphous. He argues that if cognitive science takes the classical computational story seriously, it must deny or ignore these processes, or at least relegate them to the realm of the nonmental. Along the way, Goel makes a number of significant and controversial interim points. He shows that there is a principled distinction between design and nondesign problems, that there are standard stages in the solution of design problems, that these stages correlate with the use of different types of external symbol systems, that these symbol systems are usefully individuated in Nelson Goodman's syntactic and semantic terms, and that different cognitive processes are facilitated by different types of symbol systems. (shrink)

In a recent study we demonstrated that reasoning with categorical syllogisms engages two dissociable mechanisms. Reasoning involving concrete sentences engaged a left hemisphere linguistic system while formally identical arguments, involving abstract sentences, recruited a parietal spatial network. The involvement of a parietal visuo–spatial system in abstract syllogism reasoning raised the question whether argument forms involving explicit spatial relations are sufficient to engage the parietal system? We addressed this question in an event-related fMRI study of three-term relational reasoning, using sentences with (...) concrete and abstract content. Our findings indicate that both concrete and abstract three-term relational arguments activate a similar bilateral occipital–parietal–frontal network. However, the abstract reasoning condition engendered greater parietal activation than the concrete reasoning condition. We conclude that arguments involving relations that can be easily mapped onto explicit spatial relations engage a visuo–spatial system, irrespective of concrete or abstract content. (shrink)