Preferred Inferences in Causal Relational Reasoning: Counting Model Operations
نویسندگان
چکیده
Interpreting causal relations plays an important role in everyday life, for example in scientific inquiries and text comprehension. Errors in causal reasoning can be a recipe for disaster. Despite vast literature on the psychology of human causal reasoning, there are few investigations into preferred inferences in relational three-term problems. Based on a previous formal investigation about relevant causal relations we develop a cognitive modeling approach with mental models. The key principle for this approach proves to be the prediction of preferred inferences by model operations and the process of sub model integration. Subsequent experiments test preferred inferences, the number of model operations, and if concrete or generic problems make a difference in causal reasoning performance. Implications of the model are discussed.
منابع مشابه
24-Month-Olds Engage in Relational Causal Reasoning
Children make inductive inferences about the causal properties of individual objects from a very young age. When can they infer higher-order relational properties a task that has proven difficult for non-human primates? In two experiments, we examined 1824-month-old infants’ relational inferences using a causal version of a relational match-to-sample task. Results suggest that by 21-24 months o...
متن کاملAnalogical Inferences in Causal Systems
Analogical and causal reasoning theories both seek to explain patterns of inductive inference. Researchers have claimed that reasoning scenarios incorporating aspects of both analogical comparison and causal thinking necessitate a new model of inductive inference (Holyoak, Lee, & Lu, 2010; Lee & Holyoak, 2008). This paper takes an opposing position, arguing that features of analogical models ma...
متن کاملInference processes in causal analogies
In recent papers, Lee & Holyoak (2007, 2008a, 2008b) argue that extant models of analogy fail to explain how people draw inferences from causal analogies. In the current research, we argue that structure-mapping theory sufficiently explains the analogical inferences drawn from these causal analogies, and that, contrary to L&H‘s claims, the effect inference can indeed be evaluated by a post-anal...
متن کاملAnalogy and Relational Reasoning
Analogy is an inductive mechanism based on structured comparisons of mental representations. It is an important special case of role-based relational reasoning, in which inferences are generated on the basis of patterns of relational roles. Analogical reasoning is a complex process involving retrieval of structured knowledge from long-term memory, representing and manipulating role-filler bindi...
متن کاملA theory and a computational model of spatial reasoning with preferred mental models.
Inferences about spatial arrangements and relations like "The Porsche is parked to the left of the Dodge and the Ferrari is parked to the right of the Dodge, thus, the Porsche is parked to the left of the Ferrari," are ubiquitous. However, spatial descriptions are often interpretable in many different ways and compatible with several alternative mental models. This article suggests that individ...
متن کامل