Suppression of valid inferences and knowledge structures: the curious effect of producing alternative antecedents on reasoning with causal conditionals.

Abstract

These studies looked at the difficulty that reasoners have in accepting conditional ("If P then Q") major premises that are not necessarily true empirically, as a basis for deductive reasoning. Preliminary results have shown that when reasoners are asked to produce possible alternate antecedents to the major premise ("If A then Q"), they paradoxically tend to deny the modus ponens (MP) inference ("If P is true, then Q is true"). Three studies further explored these results. The first study gave university students paper-and-pencil tests in which instructions to "suppose that the major premise is true" was followed by a request to determine the next number in a sequence, to retrieve information unrelated to the premises, or to retrieve a possible case of "If A then Q." Relative to a control group, reasoners asked to produce an alternative antecedent showed a significant tendency to deny the MP inference, whereas no such tendency was observed for the two other tasks used. A second study compared performance on a condition in which reasoners were asked to produce an alternative antecedent with that when they were given an explicit alternative. Premises used in this study were such that the latter alternative antecedent was also spontaneously produced by over 70% of reasoners. Results showed that the tendency to refuse the MP premise could not be accounted for by the specific nature of the alternative produced. A third study found that the tendency to refuse the MP inference after producing an alternative antecedent was affected by the number of "disabling conditions" (i.e., conditions that allow "P to be true" and "Q to be false") available for the major premise. These results are interpreted as being consistent with a model that supposes that logical reasoning requires selective inhibition of real-world knowledge.