Intuitive logic revisited: new data and a bayesian mixed model meta-analysis

Abstract: Recent research on syllogistic reasoning suggests that the logical status (valid vs. invalid) of even difficult syllogisms can be intuitively detected via differences in conceptual fluency between logically valid and invalid syllogisms when participants are asked to rate how much they like a conclusion following from a syllogism (Morsanyi & Handley, 2012). These claims of anintuitive logic are at odds with most theories on syllogistic reasoning which posit that detecting the logical status of difficult syllogisms requires effortful and deliberate cognitive processes. We present new data replicating the effects reported by Morsanyi and Handley, but show that this effect is eliminated when controlling for a possible confound in terms of conclusion content. Additionally, we reanalyze three studies (n~287) without this confound with a Bayesian mixed model meta-analysis (i.e., controlling for participant and item effects) which provides evidence for the null-hypothesis and against Morsanyi and Handley’s claim

Location
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
Extent
Online-Ressource
Language
Englisch
Notes
PLoS ONE. Volume 9, issue 4 (2014), e94223, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0094223, issn: 1932-6203
IN COPYRIGHT http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0 rs

Classification
Psychologie

Event
Veröffentlichung
(where)
Freiburg
(who)
Universität
(when)
2014
Creator
Contributor

DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0094223
URN
urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-119672
Rights
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
Last update
15.08.2025, 7:20 AM CEST

Data provider

This object is provided by:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.

Time of origin

  • 2014

Other Objects (12)