Abstract
Recent studies on logical reasoning have suggested that people are intuitively aware of the logical validity of syllogisms or that they intuitively detect conflict between heuristic responses and logical norms via slight changes in their feelings. According to logical intuition studies, logically valid or heuristic logic no-conflict reasoning is fluently processed and induces positive feelings without conscious awareness. One criticism states that such effects of logicality disappear when confounding factors such as the content of syllogisms are controlled. The present study used abstract propositions and tested whether people intuitively detect logical value. Experiment 1 presented four logical propositions (conjunctive, biconditional, conditional, and material implications) regarding a target case and asked the participants to rate the extent to which they liked the statement. Experiment 2 tested the effects of matching bias, as well as intuitive logic, on the reasoners’ feelings by manipulating whether the antecedent or consequent (or both) of the conditional was affirmed or negated. The results showed that both logicality and matching bias affected the reasoners’ feelings, and people preferred logically true targets over logically false ones for all forms of propositions. These results suggest that people intuitively detect what is true from what is false during abstract reasoning. Additionally, a Bayesian mixed model meta-analysis of conditionals indicated that people’s intuitive interpretation of the conditional “if p then q” fits better with the conditional probability, q given p.
Highlights
The dual process theory of reasoning [1,2,3,4,5] describes two distinct modes of thinking: one is fast, heuristic, and intuitive, while the other is slow, analytic, and deliberative
For the material implication form, the FT was rated higher than the true consequent (TT), TF, and FF; the TT was rated higher than the TF and FF; and the FF was rated higher than the FT
Participants liked the true cases more than they did the false cases in all four logical forms, and the results suggested that participants had intuitively distinct, and logically consistent and inconsistent cases
Summary
The dual process theory of reasoning [1,2,3,4,5] describes two distinct modes of thinking: one is fast, heuristic, and intuitive, while the other is slow, analytic, and deliberative. Klauer and Singmann [21,22] criticized Morsanyi and Handley’s study [18] for their confounding non-logical factors (e.g., some conclusions contained more preferable content and were presented only in valid syllogisms) and they showed that the effect of logical validity on the liking rating disappeared when mean liking for the contents of the conclusions was controlled for It is unclear whether people are intuitively aware of and experience positive feelings about logicality. It was argued that conjunctive responses to conditionals reflects shallow processing and lower cognitive ability, while conditional probability or de Finetti Table responses relate to higher cognitive ability [27, 28] Based on these accounts, three possible hypotheses about intuitive interpretation and liking ratings for conditionals can be proposed: 1. Note: Truth value of the biconditional and conditional were based on the suppositional account
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
