Reasoning

Reasoning is the ability to infer propositions from given propositions. The psychological research is concerned with the cognitive processes underlying human reasoning. An influential way of addressing this question has been to compare observed reasoning performance with normative systems such as bivalent logic or probability theory with the goal to infer that underlying processes somehow mimic or reproduce normative systems.

conditional

The four conditional inferences for a conditional “If P then Q”: Modus Ponens (MP), Modus Tollens (MT), affirmation of the consequent (AC), and denial of the antecedent (DA).

General theories of human reasoning can be categorized into three broad classes: form-based theories, content-based theories, and hybrid theories. The basic idea underlying the form-based theories is that reasoners transform propositions into abstract representations and perform the reasoning processes on the abstract representations. The most prominent examples of form-based theories are the somewhat dated mental-rule based theories and the popular mental model theory (e.g., ; ). To deal with ubiquitous content effects (i.e., the empirical observation that responses in reasoning task are strongly influenced by the content of inferences) the mental model theory assumes that the content of inferences influences the construction of the initial mental models. In contrast, content-based theories assume that reasoning is primarily based on reasoners representations of their knowledge related to the content of the inferences. For example, within the Bayesian rationality framework it is assumed that reasoning is basically the estimation of the conditional probability of the conclusion given the premises where the probability of the premises is estimated from reasoners’ background knowledge.

Hybrid theories of reasoning try to somewhat overcome the duality between form- and content-based theories. The dual-process framework assumes two distinct types of cognitive processes, autonomous Type I processes that do not require working memory resources and deliberative Type II processes that require working memory and are able to perform mental simulations. Typically Type I processes are fast and strongly coupled to prior experiences are associated with many of the observed biases. In contrast, Type II processes are usually slow, rule-based, controlled, correlated with general cognitive ability, and more often produce normative responses. Orthogonal to the dual-processes theories is the dual-source idea (; ) which assumes that reasoners possess both form-competence and content-competence which are integrated when asked to produce a reasoning outcome.

In my research I have been mostly concerned with conditional reasoning.  Conditional reasoning is mainly concerned with four inferences from conditional statements of the form “If P then Q” which are displayed in the Figure. In addition to the conditional statement the inferences contain an additional (minor or categorical) premise consisting of a single proposition (P, not P, Q, or not Q) and a putative conclusion also consisting of a single proposition. In my first paper we could show that the form-based theories or the content-based theories alone are not able to explain the complete pattern of data obtained in conditional reasoning when comparing deductive instructions (typically used by form-based theories; see also ) and probabilistic instructions (typically used by content-based theories) as they are based on a single-process only. In contrast we argue that hybrid theories which at least two different processes are necessary. Since then I have been concerned with more theory comparison for conditional reasoning and am currently working on the dual-source model. For a complete overview of my research on reasoning see here.

 

 References

Baumann, C., Singmann, H., Gershman, S. J., & Helversen, B. von. (2020). A linear threshold model for optimal stopping behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(23), 12750–12755. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002312117
Merkle, E. C., & Wang, T. (2018). Bayesian latent variable models for the analysis of experimental psychology data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1016-7
Overstall, A. M., & Forster, J. J. (2010). Default Bayesian model determination methods for generalised linear mixed models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 54(12), 3269–3288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2010.03.008
Llorente, F., Martino, L., Delgado, D., & Lopez-Santiago, J. (2020). Marginal likelihood computation for model selection and hypothesis testing: an extensive review. ArXiv:2005.08334 [Cs, Stat]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.08334
Duersch, P., Lambrecht, M., & Oechssler, J. (2020). Measuring skill and chance in games. European Economic Review, 127, 103472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103472
Lee, M. D., & Courey, K. A. (2020). Modeling Optimal Stopping in Changing Environments: a Case Study in Mate Selection. Computational Brain & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-020-00085-9
Xie, W., Bainbridge, W. A., Inati, S. K., Baker, C. I., & Zaghloul, K. A. (2020). Memorability of words in arbitrary verbal associations modulates memory retrieval in the anterior temporal lobe. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0901-2
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2006). Models in Science. Retrieved from https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/
Greenland, S., Madure, M., Schlesselman, J. J., Poole, C., & Morgenstern, H. (2020). Standardized Regression Coefficients: A Further Critique and Review of Some Alternatives, 7.
Gelman, A. (2020, June 22). Retraction of racial essentialist article that appeared in Psychological Science « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. Retrieved June 24, 2020, from https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/22/retraction-of-racial-essentialist-article-that-appeared-in-psychological-science/
Rozeboom, W. W. (1970). 2. The Art of Metascience, or, What Should a Psychological Theory Be? In J. Royce (Ed.), Toward Unification in Psychology (pp. 53–164). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487577506-003
Gneiting, T., & Raftery, A. E. (2007). Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(477), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437
Rouhani, N., Norman, K. A., Niv, Y., & Bornstein, A. M. (2020). Reward prediction errors create event boundaries in memory. Cognition, 203, 104269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104269
Robinson, M. M., Benjamin, A. S., & Irwin, D. E. (2020). Is there a K in capacity? Assessing the structure of visual short-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 121, 101305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101305
Lee, M. D., Criss, A. H., Devezer, B., Donkin, C., Etz, A., Leite, F. P., … Vandekerckhove, J. (2019). Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science. Computational Brain & Behavior, 2(3), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00029-y
Bailer-Jones, D. (2009). Scientific models in philosophy of science. Pittsburgh, Pa.,: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Suppes, P. (2002). Representation and invariance of scientific structures. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
Roy, D. (2003). The Discrete Normal Distribution. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 32(10), 1871–1883. https://doi.org/10.1081/STA-120023256
Ospina, R., & Ferrari, S. L. P. (2012). A general class of zero-or-one inflated beta regression models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 56(6), 1609–1623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2011.10.005
Uygun Tunç, D., & Tunç, M. N. (2020). A Falsificationist Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses in Social and Behavioral Sciences: Systematic Replications Framework (preprint). PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pdm7y
Murayama, K., Blake, A. B., Kerr, T., & Castel, A. D. (2016). When enough is not enough: Information overload and metacognitive decisions to stop studying information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(6), 914–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000213
Jefferys, W. H., & Berger, J. O. (1992). Ockham’s Razor and Bayesian Analysis. American Scientist, 80(1), 64–72. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/29774559
Maier, S. U., Raja Beharelle, A., Polanía, R., Ruff, C. C., & Hare, T. A. (2020). Dissociable mechanisms govern when and how strongly reward attributes affect decisions. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0893-y
Nadarajah, S. (2009). An alternative inverse Gaussian distribution. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 79(5), 1721–1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2008.08.013
Barndorff-Nielsen, O., BlÆsild, P., & Halgreen, C. (1978). First hitting time models for the generalized inverse Gaussian distribution. Stochastic Processes and Their Applications, 7(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4149(78)90036-4
Ghitany, M. E., Mazucheli, J., Menezes, A. F. B., & Alqallaf, F. (2019). The unit-inverse Gaussian distribution: A new alternative to two-parameter distributions on the unit interval. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 48(14), 3423–3438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2018.1476717
Weichart, E. R., Turner, B. M., & Sederberg, P. B. (2020). A model of dynamic, within-trial conflict resolution for decision making. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000191
Bates, C. J., & Jacobs, R. A. (2020). Efficient data compression in perception and perceptual memory. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000197
Kvam, P. D., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2020). A distributional and dynamic theory of pricing and preference. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000215
Blundell, C., Sanborn, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2012). Look-Ahead Monte Carlo with People (p. 7). Presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
Leon-Villagra, P., Otsubo, K., Lucas, C. G., & Buchsbaum, D. (2020). Uncovering Category Representations with Linked MCMC with people. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 7).
Leon-Villagra, P., Klar, V. S., Sanborn, A. N., & Lucas, C. G. (2019). Exploring the Representation of Linear Functions. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 7).
Ramlee, F., Sanborn, A. N., & Tang, N. K. Y. (2017). What Sways People’s Judgment of Sleep Quality? A Quantitative Choice-Making Study With Good and Poor Sleepers. Sleep, 40(7). https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsx091
Hsu, A. S., Martin, J. B., Sanborn, A. N., & Griffiths, T. L. (2019). Identifying category representations for complex stimuli using discrete Markov chain Monte Carlo with people. Behavior Research Methods, 51(4), 1706–1716. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01201-9
Martin, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Sanborn, A. N. (2012). Testing the Efficiency of Markov Chain Monte Carlo With People Using Facial Affect Categories. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01204.x
Gronau, Q. F., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Heck, D. W., & Matzke, D. (2019). A Simple Method for Comparing Complex Models: Bayesian Model Comparison for Hierarchical Multinomial Processing Tree Models Using Warp-III Bridge Sampling. Psychometrika, 84(1), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-018-9648-3
Wickelmaier, F., & Zeileis, A. (2018). Using recursive partitioning to account for parameter heterogeneity in multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1217–1233. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0937-z
Jacobucci, R., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Regularization in Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1410822
Raftery, A. E. (1993). Bayesian model selection in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 163–180). Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
Lewis, S. M., & Raftery, A. E. (1997). Estimating Bayes Factors via Posterior Simulation With the Laplace-Metropolis Estimator. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92(438), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2965712
Mair, P. (2018). Modern psychometrics with R. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Kaplan, D., & Lee, C. (2016). Bayesian Model Averaging Over Directed Acyclic Graphs With Implications for the Predictive Performance of Structural Equation Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(3), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2015.1092088
Schoot, R. van de, Verhoeven, M., & Hoijtink, H. (2013). Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses in SEM using Mplus: A black bear story. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.732719
Lin, L.-C., Huang, P.-H., & Weng, L.-J. (2017). Selecting Path Models in SEM: A Comparison of Model Selection Criteria. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(6), 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1363652
Shi, D., Song, H., Liao, X., Terry, R., & Snyder, L. A. (2017). Bayesian SEM for Specification Search Problems in Testing Factorial Invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(4), 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1306432
Matsueda, R. L. (2012). Key advances in the history of structural equation modeling. In Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 17–42). New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press.
Bollen, K. A. (2005). Structural Equation Models. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470011815.b2a13089
Tarka, P. (2018). An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 52(1), 313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8
Sewell, D. K., & Stallman, A. (2020). Modeling the Effect of Speed Emphasis in Probabilistic Category Learning. Computational Brain & Behavior, 3(2), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00067-6