Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:54:32.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Directionality Effect in Double Conditionals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2015

Orlando Espino ,
Isana Sánchez-Curbelo  and
Alicia Bolaños-Medina
Orlando Espino*
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna (Spain)
Isana Sánchez-Curbelo
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna (Spain)
Alicia Bolaños-Medina
Affiliation:
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Orlando Espino. Department of Psychology. Universidad de La Laguna. Campus de Guajara. 38205. La Laguna (Spain). Phone: +34–922317505. Fax: +34–922317461. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Directionality effect in deductive reasoning is a very well-known phenomenon that shows that the percentage of forward or backward inferences that participants make depends on the conditional form used. A new extension of the semantic hypothesis (Oberauer & Wilhelm, 2000) is presented to explain the directionality effect in double conditionals with different directionality. This hypothesis claims that the directional effect depends on which term plays the role of relatum. It also makes several novel claims which have been confirmed in three experiments: Experiments 1 and 2 showed there were more forward than backward inferences when the end-term that played the role of relatum was in the first premise, experiment 1: t (45) = 2.73, p < .01, experiment 2: t (38) = 12.06, p < .05, but there were more backward than forward inferences when the end-term that played the role of relatum was in the second premise, experiment 1: t (45) = 2.84, p < .01, experiment 2: t (38) = 2.21, p < .04. Experiment 3 showed that there was no directional effect when both end-terms played the role of relatum, t (34) = 1.39, p = .17, or when both middle-terms (or neither of the end-terms) played the role of relatum, t (34) = .78, p = .44. These experiments confirmed the predictions of the new extension of the semantic hypothesis.

Keywords

directionality effectdouble conditionalsemantic hypothesis
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E57
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

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

Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Espino, O., & Hernández, E. (2009). Efectos de direccionalidad en condicionales [Directionality effects in conditionals]. Psicológica, 30, 41–57.Google Scholar
Espino, O., & Santamaría, C. (2013). Presentation format and syllogistic reasoning. Psicológica, 34, 313–26.Google Scholar
Espino, O., & Santamaría, C. (2008). Initial models in conditionals: Evidence from priming. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 36–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600004091 Google Scholar
Espino, O., Santamaría, C., & García-Madruga, J. A. (2000). Activation of end-terms in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 6, 67–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135467800393939 Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1977). Linguistic factors in reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640747708400605 Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1993). The mental model theory of conditional reasoning: Critical appraisal and revision. Cognition, 48, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90056-2 Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Beck, M. A. (1981). Directionality and temporal factors in conditional reasoning. Current Psychological Research, 1, 111–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02684483 Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 81–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690969108406939 Google Scholar
Grosset, N., & Barrouillet, P. (2003). On the nature of mental models of conditionals: The case of if, if then, and only if. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 289–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354678034000240 Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16, 1–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(84)90035-0 Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1995.1004 Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., Hörnig, R., Weidenfeld, A., & Wilhelm, O. (2005). Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning: II. Premise integration and conclusion evaluation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 1225–1247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000566 Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., & Wilhelm, O. (2000). Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning: I. The comprehension of single relational premises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1702–1712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1702 Google Scholar
Santamaría, C., & Espino, O. (2002). Conditionals and directionality: On the meaning of If vs. only if. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 41–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000145 Google Scholar