Skip to main content
Log in

An adaptive model for human syllogistic reasoning

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How humans reason in general about syllogisms is, despite a century of research and many proposed cognitive theories, still an unanswered question. It is even more difficult, however, to answer how an individual human reasons. The goal of this article is twofold: First, it analyses the predictive quality of existing cognitive theories by providing a standardized (re-) implementation of existing theories. Towards this, theories are algorithmically formalized, including their potential capabilities for adaptation to an individual reasoner. The implementations are modular with regard to the underlying mental operations defined by the cognitive theories. Second, it proposes a novel composite approach based on existing cognitive theories, resulting in a cognitive model for predicting an individual reasoner before s/he draws a conclusion. This approach uses sequences of operations, inherited and combined from different theories, to form its predictions. Among the existing models, our implementations of PHM, mReasoner, and Verbal Models make the most accurate predictions of the conclusions drawn by individual reasoners. The designed composite model, however, is able to significantly surpass those implementations by exploiting synergies between different models. In particular, it successfully combines operations from PHM and Verbal Models. Therefore, the composite approach is a promising tool to model and study syllogistic reasoning and to generate tailored cognitive theories. At the same time it provides a general method that can potentially be applied to predict individual human reasoners in other domains, too.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://github.com/CognitiveComputationLab/cogmods/blob/master/syllogistic/2020_bischofberger

  2. https://github.com/CognitiveComputationLab/CCOBRA

References

  1. Begg, I., Denny, J.P.: Empirical reconciliation of atmosphere and conversion interpretations of syllogistic reasoning errors. J. Exp. Psychol. 81(2), 351–354 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bucciarelli, M., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Strategies in syllogistic reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 23 (3), 247–303 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2303_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P.: Atmosphere effect re-examined. J. Exp. Psychol. 58(3), 220–226 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chater, N., Oaksford, M.: The probability heuristics model of syllogistic reasoning. Cogn. Psychol. 38(2), 191–258 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Erickson, J.R.: A set analysis theory of behavior in formal syllogistic reasoning tasks. In: Solso, R.L. (ed.) Loyola Symposium on Cognition, vol. 2. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1974)

  6. Ford, M.: Two modes of mental representation and problem solution in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition 54(1), 1–71 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00625-u

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Geurts, B.: Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition 86(3), 223–251 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson-Laird, P.N., Khemlani, S.: Toward a unified theory of reasoning. In: Psychology of Learning and Motivation. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-407187-2.00001-0, pp 1–42. Elsevier (2013)

  9. Johnson-Laird, P.N., Steedman, M.: The psychology of syllogisms. Cogn. Psychol. 10 (1), 64–99 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(78)90019-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Theories of the syllogism: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 138(3), 427–457 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: The processes of inference. Argument & Computation 4(1), 4–20 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2012.674060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: How people differ in syllogistic reasoning. In: Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., Trueswell, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX (2016)

  13. Newell, A.: Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: the problem space as a fundamental category. In: Nickerson, R.S. (ed.) Attention and Performance VIII, pp 693–718. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1980)

  14. Polk, T.A., Newell, A.: Deduction as verbal reasoning. Psychol. Rev. 102(3), 533–566 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Revlis, R.: Two models of syllogistic reasoning: Feature selection and conversion. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 14(2), 180–195 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80064-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Riesterer, N., Brand, D., Ragni, M.: Predictive modeling of individual human cognition: Upper bounds and a new perspective on performance. Top. Cogn. Sci. 12(3), 960–974 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rips, L.J.: The Psychology of Proof. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Stenning, K., Yule, P.: Image and language in human reasoning: a syllogistic illustration. Cogn. Psychol. 34(2), 109–159 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wetherick, N.E., Gilhooly, K.J.: ‘atmosphere’, matching, and logic in syllogistic reasoning. Current Psychology 14(3), 169–178 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02686906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Woodworth, R.S., Sells, S.B.: An atmosphere effect in formal syllogistic reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol. 18(4), 451–460 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060520

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Bischofberger.

Ethics declarations

Declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The code of all implemented modelsFootnote 1 and the evaluation framework,Footnote 2 which also includes the training and evaluation data have been published.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The work has been partially supported by DFG research grants to MR: RA1934/4-1 and RA1934/9-1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bischofberger, J., Ragni, M. An adaptive model for human syllogistic reasoning. Ann Math Artif Intell 89, 923–945 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-021-09737-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-021-09737-3

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Navigation