Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:26:53.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Philosophy of Mind

Human Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2024

David E Over  and
Jonathan St B T Evans
David E Over
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Jonathan St B T Evans
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth

Summary

This Element is on new developments in the psychology of reasoning that raise or address philosophical questions. In traditional studies in the psychology of reasoning, the focus was on inference from arbitrary assumptions and not at all from beliefs, and classical binary logic was presupposed as the only standard for human reasoning. But recently a new Bayesian paradigm has emerged in the discipline. This views ordinary human reasoning as mostly inferring probabilistic conclusions from degrees of beliefs, or from hypothetical premises relevant to a purpose at hand, and as often about revising or updating degrees of belief. This Element also covers new formulations of dual-process theories of the mind, stating that there are two types of mental processing, one rapid and intuitive and shared with other animals, and the other slow and reflective and more characteristic of human beings. The final topic covered is the new developments and rationality.
Get access

Keywords

new paradigmdual processesBayesian reasoningprobability judgementhuman rationality.
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Philosophy of Mind
Online ISBN: 9781009495349
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 20 June 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, E. (1965). The logic of conditionals. Inquiry, 8, 166–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, E. (1998). A primer of probability logic. Stanford: CLSI.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2020). Exploring working memory: Selected works of Alan Baddelely. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baratgin, J., Over, D. E., & Politzer, G. (2013). Uncertainty and the de Finetti tables. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 308–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baratgin, J., Politzer, G., Over, D. E., & Takahashi, T. (2018). The psychology of uncertainty and three-valued truth tables. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 241–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissin, E., Josserand, M., De Neys, W., & Caparos, S. (2024). Debiasing thinking among non-WEIRD reasoners. Cognition, 243(3), 105681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonnefon, J.-F. (2013). New ambitions for a new paradigm: Putting the psychology of reasoning at the service of humanity. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3–4), 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourlier, M., Jacquet, J., Lassiter, D., & Baratgin, J. (2023). Coherence, not conditional meaning, accounts for the relevance effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1150550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., & O’Brien, D. P. (1991). A theory of if: A lexical entry, reasoning program, and pragmatic principles. Psychological Review, 98, 182–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R. M. J. (1989). Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition, 31, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantwell, J. (2020). Revisiting McGee’s probabilistic analysis of conditionals. Journal of Philosophical logic, 5, 1–45.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (1999). The probability heuristics model of syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 191–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleeremans, A. (2015). Implicit learning and consciousness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cleeremans, A., & Kuvaldina, M. (2019). Implicit learning: 50 years on. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, B., Feeney, A., & McCormack, T. (2023). Prosocial risk taking and interpersonal regret in children: An individual differences study. Social Development, 32, 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, N. (2020). Deduction from uncertain premises? In Elqayam, S., Douven, I., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Cruz, N. (Eds.), Logic and uncertainty in the human mind (pp. 27–41). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, N., Baratgin, J., Oaksford, M., & Over, D. E. (2015). Bayesian reasoning with ifs and ands and ors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 192.Google ScholarPubMed
Cruz, N., & Over, D. E. (2023). Independence conditionals. In Kaufmann, S., Over, D. E., & Sharma, G. (Eds.), Conditionals – Logic, linguistics and psychology (pp. 223–233). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, N., & Over, D. E. (2024). From de Finetti’s three values to conditional probabilities in the psychology of reasoning. In Egré, P., & Rossi, L. (Eds.), Handbook of trivalent logics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cruz, N., Over, D., Oaksford, M., & Baratgin, J. (2016). Centering and the meaning of conditionals. In Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., & Trueswell, J. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1104–1109). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Cruz, N., Over, D., & Oaksford, M. (2017). The elusive oddness of or-introduction. In Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T., & Davelaar, E. (Eds.), The 39th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 663–668). London: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
De Finetti, B. (1936/1995). The logic of probability. Philosophical Studies, 77, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Finetti, B. (1937/1964). Foresight: Its logical laws, its subjective sources. In Kyburg, H. E., & Smokier, H. E. (Eds.), Studies in subjective probability (pp. 55–118). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Neys, W. (2022). Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e111.Google Scholar
Doherty, M. E., Mynatt, C. R., Tweney, R. D., & Schiavo, M. D. (1979). Pseudodiagnosticity. Acta Psychologica, 43, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I., Elqayam, S., & Krzyżanowska, K. (2023). Inferentialism: A manifesto. In Kaufmann, S., Over, D. E., & Sharma, G. (Eds.), Conditionals – Logic, linguistics and psychology (pp. 175–221). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deary, I. J. (2020). Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Demey, L., Kooi, B., & Sack, J. (2023). Logic and probability. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E. N., & Nodelman, U. (Eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/logic-probability/.Google Scholar
Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104, 235–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egré, P., Rossi, L., & Sprenger, J. (2021). De Finettian logics of indicative conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2011). Subtracting ‘ought’ from ‘is’: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 233–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2013). Rationality in the new paradigm: Strict versus soft Bayesian approaches. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Brighton: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978–996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2005). How to do research: A psychologist’s guide. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 378–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007a). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Hove: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007b). On the resolution of conflict in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2014). Two minds rationality. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2016). Reasoning, biases and dual processes: The lasting impact of Wason (1960). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2018). Dual-process theory: Perspectives and problems. In Neys, W. De (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 137–155). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2019). Reflections on reflection: The nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(4), 383–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2021). The rationality debate in the psychology of reasoning: A historical review. In Knauff, M., & Spohn, W. (Eds.), The handbook of rationality (pp. 71–86). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2022). Wason selection task. In Pohl, R. F. (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory (pp. 140–153). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2020). The suppositional conditional is not (just) the probability conditional. In Elqayam, S., Douven, I., St, J.. Evans, B. T., & Cruz, N. (Eds.), Logic and uncertainty in the human mind (pp. 57–70). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Ball, L. J., & Thompson, V. A. (2022). Belief bias in deductive reasoning. In Pohl, R. F. (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgement and memory (pp. 154–172). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S., Neilens, H., & Over, D. E. (2007). Thinking about conditionals: A study of individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1772–1784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S., Neilens, H., & Over, D. E. (2010). The influence of cognitive ability and instructional set on causal conditional inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 892–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., Harper, C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Reasoning about necessity and possibility: A test of the mental model theory of deduction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25, 1495–1513.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., & Over, D. E. (2003). Conditionals and conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 29, 321–335.Google ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Lynch, J. S. (1973). Matching bias in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2013). Two minds rationality. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., Thompson, V., & Over, D. E. (2015). Uncertain deduction and conditional reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Wason, P. C. (1976). Rationalisation in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 205–212.Google Scholar
Frankish, K., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2009). The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In Evans, J. St. B. T., & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, A. (2018). Forty years of progress on category-based inductive reasoning. In Ball, L. J., & Thompson, V. A. (Eds.), International handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 167–185). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ghasemi, O., Handley, S. J., Howarth, S., Newman, I. R., & Thompson, V. A. (2022). Logical intuition is not really about logic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 2009–2028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghasemi, O., Handley, S. J., Howarth, S. (2023). Illusory intuitive inferences: Matching heuristics explain logical intuitions. Cognition, 235, 105417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilio, A., & Over, D. E. (2012). The psychology of inferring conditionals from disjunctions: A probabilistic study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilio, A., Pfeifer, N., & Sanfilippo, G. (2020). Probabilistic entailment and iterated conditionals. In Elqayam, S., Douven, I., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Cruz, N. (Eds.), Logic and uncertainty in the human mind (pp. 71–101). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1983). Good thinking: The foundations of probability and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, R. Q., & Wason, P. C. (1972). Degrees of insight. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hadjichristidis, C., Sloman, S. A., & Over, D. E. (2014). Categorical induction from uncertain premises: Jeffrey’s doesn’t completely rule. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handley, S. J., Newstead, S. E., & Trippas, D. (2011). Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(1), 28–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, A., J. L., Hahn, U., Madsen, J. K., & Hsu, A. S. (2016). The appeal to expert opinion: Quantitative support for a Bayesian network approach. Cognitive Science, 40, 1496–1533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review, 69, 366–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (third edition). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1983). The logic of decision (second edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1991). Matter of fact conditionals. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 65, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Bara, B. G. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Khemlani, S., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, S. (2023). How fake is fake past? In Kaufmann, S., Over, D. E., & Sharma, G. (Eds.), Conditionals – Logic, linguistics and psychology (pp. 389–423). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kleiter, G. D. (1994). Natural sampling: Rationality without base rates. In Fisher, G. H., & Laming, D. (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology, psychometrics, and methodology (pp. 375–388). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiter, G. D., Fugard, J. B., Pfeifer, N. (2018). A process model of the understanding of uncertain conditionals. Thinking & Reasoning, 24, 386–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1962). The development of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kolodny, N., & Brunero, J. (2023). Instrumental rationality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E. N., & Nodelman, U. (Eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/rationality-instrumental/.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberative judgements are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassiter, D. (2019). What we can learn from how trivalent conditionals avoid triviality. Inquiry, 63, 1087–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2023). Decomposing relevance in conditionals. Mind & Language, 38(3), 644–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassiter, D., & Goodman, N. D. (2015). How many kinds of reasoning? Inference, probability, and natural language semantics. Cognition, 136, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1976). Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities. Philosophical Review, 85, 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, E. J., & Ball, L. J. (2005). Think-aloud protocols and the selection task: Evidence for relevance effects and rationalisation processes. Thinking and Reasoning, 11(1), 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manktelow, K. I. (2021). Beyond reasoning: The life, time and work of Peter Wason, pioneering psychologist. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDowell, M., & Jacobs, P. (2017). Meta-analysis of the effect of natural frequencies on Bayesian reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 1273–1312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason: A new theory of human understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morley, N. J., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Handley, S. J. (2004). Belief bias and figural bias in syllogistic reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 666–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newstead, S. E., Handley, S. J., Harley, C., Wright, H., & Farelly, D. (2004). Individual differences in deductive reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakhill, J., Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Garnham, A. (1989). Believability and syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 31, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2020). New paradigms in the psychology of reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 305–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oberauer, K., & 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Oberauer, K., Weidenfeld, A., & Fischer, K. (2007). What makes us believe a conditional? Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), 340–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(6), 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Over, D. E. (2003). From massive modularity to metarepresentation: The evolution of higher cognition. In Over, D. E. (Ed.), Evolution and the psychology of thinking: The debate (pp. 121–144). Hove: The Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Over, D. E. (2009). New paradigm psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 15, 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Over, D. E. (2020). The development of the new paradigm in the psychology of reasoning. In Elqayam, S., Douven, I., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Cruz, N. (Eds.), Logic and uncertainty in the human mind (pp. 431–438). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Over, D. E. (2023a). The new paradigm and massive modalization: Commentary on Knauff and Gazzo Castañeda. Thinking & Reasoning, 29(3), 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Over, D. E. (2023b). Independence and rationality. The Reasoner: Focus issue on the Handbook of Rationality, 17(6), 47–48. www.thereasoner.org/.Google Scholar
Over, D. E., & Baratgin, J. (2017). The ‘defective’ truth table: Its past, present, and future. In Galbraith, N., Over, D. E., & Lucas, E., (Eds.), The thinking mind: A Festschrift for Ken Manktelow (pp. 15–28). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Over, D. E., & Cruz, N. (2018). Probabilistic accounts of conditional reasoning. In Ball, L. J., & Thompson, V. A. (Eds.), International handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 434–450). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Over, D. E., & Cruz, N. (2023). Indicative and counterfactual conditionals in the psychology of reasoning. In Kaufmann, S., Over, D. E., & Sharma, G. (Eds.), Conditionals – Logic, linguistics and psychology (pp. 139–174). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Over, D. E., Hadjichristidis, C., Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). The probability of causal conditionals. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 62–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2013). Structural counterfactuals: A brief introduction. Cognitive Science, 37, 977–985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeifer, N. (2023). The logic and pragmatics of conditionals under uncertainty: A mental probability logic perspective. In Kaufmann, S., Over, D. E., & Sharma, G. (Eds.), Conditionals – Logic, linguistics and psychology (pp. 73–102). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2009). Framing human inference by coherence based probability logic. Journal of Applied Logic, 7, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletiek, F. (2001). Hypothesis-testing behaviour. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Politzer, G., Over, D. E., & Baratgin, J. (2010). Betting on conditionals. Thinking & Reasoning, 16, 172–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1926/1990). Truth and probability. In Mellor, D. H. (Ed.), Philosophical papers (pp. 52–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1929/1990). General propositions and causality. In Mellor, D. H. (Ed.), Philosophical papers (pp. 145–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2020). Delusional rationality. In Elqayam, S., Douven, I., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Cruz, N. (Eds.), Logic and uncertainty in the human mind (pp. 178–191). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2023). Living in a material world: A critical notice of Suppose and tell. Mind, 132, 208–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanfilippo, G., Gilio, A., Over, D. E., & Pfeifer, N. (2020). Probabilities of conditionals and previsions of iterated conditionals. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 121, 150–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 13, 501–518.Google Scholar
Sebben, S., & Ullrich, J. (2021). Can conditionals explain explanations? A modus ponens model of B because A. Cognition, 215, 104812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S., & Kouri Kissel, T. (2022). Classical logic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/logic-classical/.Google Scholar
Singmann, H., Klauer, K. C., & Over, D. E. (2014). New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model. Frontiers of Psychology, 5, 316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skovgaard-Olsen, N., Kellen, D., Krahl, H., & Klauer, K. C. (2017). Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘therefore’, and ‘if then’. Thinking & Reasoning, 23, 449–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skovgaard-Olsen, N., Singmann, H., & Klauer, K. C. (2016). The relevance effect and conditionals. Cognition, 150, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A., & Fernbach, P. (2017). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. New York: Riverhead.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2015). Causality in thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smedslund, J. (1970). Circular relation between understanding and logic. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 11, 217–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E., & DeCoster, J. (1999). Associative and rule-based processing: A connectionist interpretation of dual-process models. In Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 323–360). New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, J., & Hartmann, S. (2019). Bayesian philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Rescher, N. (Ed.), Studies in logical theory (pp. 98–112). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2004). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning the age of Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss. London: Yale university press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Why humans are (sometimes) less rational than other animals: Cognitive complexity and the axioms of rational choice. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24, 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2021). The bias that divides us: The science and politics of myside thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., Sÿ, W. C., & West, R. F. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 497–510.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, C., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Towards a test of ratiional thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking & Reasoning, 4, 193–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 701–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. (1995). Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 613–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, V. A. (1994). Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 742–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, V. A., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Reasoning counterfactually: Making inferences about things that didn’t happen. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1154–1170.Google ScholarPubMed
Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B., & Campbell, J. I. D. (2013). Matching bias on the selection task: It’s fast and feels good. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3–4), 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2018). Do smart people have better intuItions? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 945–961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toates, F. (2004). In two minds – Consideration of evolutionary precursors permits a more integrative theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toates, F. (2006). A model of the hierarchy of behaviour, cognition and consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 75–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional vs intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, R., Krzyżanowska, K., & Douven, I. (2023). Williamson’s abductive case for the material conditional account. Studia Logica, 111, 653–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., Over, D. E., & Liang, L. (2022). What is required for the truth of a general conditional? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 12–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In Foss, B. M. (Ed.), New horizons in psychology I (pp. 106–137). Harmandsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1983). Realism and rationality in the selection task. In Evans, J. St. B. T. (Ed.), Thinking and reasoning: Psychological approaches (pp. 44–75). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1975). Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition, 3, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Wilkins, M. C. (1928). The effect of changed material on the ability to do formal syllogistic reasoning. Archives of Psychology, 16, 102.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2020). Suppose and tell: The semantics and heuristics of conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodworth, R. S., & Sells, S. B. (1935). An atmosphere effect in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, J., & Osherson, D. (2010). Updating beliefs in light of uncertain evidence: Descriptive assessment of Jeffrey’s rule. Thinking & Reasoning, 16(4), 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, K. (2021). People may have used fire to clear forests more than 80,000 years ago. Scientific American. www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-may-have-used-fire-to-clear-forests-more-than-80-000-years-ago/.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Human Reasoning
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Human Reasoning
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Human Reasoning
Available formats
×