Belief bias, logical reasoning and presentation order on the syllogistic evaluation task

Nicola J. Lambell, Jonathan St. B. T. Evans, Simon J. Handley

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference proceeding contributionpeer-review

Abstract

Evans, Barston and Pollard, (1983) found that on the syllogistic evaluation task participants tended to endorse believable conclusions as being valid but reject unbelievable conclusions as invalid. A phenomenon known as "Belief Bias". Additionally, they collected verbal protocols from participants and established that this influence of belief was primarily associated with initial reference to the conclusions of these syllogistic arguments. In contrast, better logical reasoning was associated with initial reference to the premises. This experiment was designed to try to direct participants' anention to either the conclusion or the premises of a syllogistic argument with the intention of manipulating participants' logical reasoning ability and susceptibility to belief. The results reflected an inability to alter the influence of beliefs, but in one condition where the conclusion was presented prior to the premises, there was a successful reduction in participants' reasoning ability. The results are discussed with respect to the current theories of belief bias.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
EditorsMartin Hahn, Scott C. Stoness
Place of PublicationMahwah, New Jersey
PublisherLawrence Erlbaum
Pages282-287
Number of pages6
ISBN (Print)0805835814
Publication statusPublished - 1999
Externally publishedYes
EventAnnual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (21st : 1999) - Vancouver, British Columbia
Duration: 19 Aug 199921 Aug 1999

Conference

ConferenceAnnual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (21st : 1999)
CityVancouver, British Columbia
Period19/08/9921/08/99

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Belief bias, logical reasoning and presentation order on the syllogistic evaluation task'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this