Abstract
Transitive Inference (deduce B > D from B > C and C > D) can help us to understand other areas of sociocognitive development. Across three experiments, learning, memory, and the validity of two transitive paradigms were investigated. In Experiment 1 (N = 121), 7-year-olds completed a three-term nontraining task or a five-term task requiring extensive-training. Performance was superior on the three-term task. Experiment 2 presented 5–10-year-olds with a new five-term task, increasing learning opportunities without lengthening training (N = 71). Inferences improved, suggesting children can learn five-term series rapidly. Regarding memory, the minor (CD) premise was the best predictor of BD-inferential performance in both task-types. However, tasks exhibited different profiles according to associations between the major (BC) premise and BD inference, correlations between the premises, and the role of age. Experiment 3 (N = 227) helped rule out the possible objection that the above findings simply stemmed from three-term tasks with real objects being easier to solve than computer-tasks. It also confirmed that, unlike for five-term task (Experiments 1 & 2), inferences on three-term tasks improve with age, whether the age range is wide (Experiment 3) or narrow (Experiment 2). I conclude that the tasks indexed different routes within a dual-process conception of transitive reasoning: The five-term tasks indexes Type 1 (associative) processing, and the three-term task indexes Type 2 (analytic) processing. As well as demonstrating that both tasks are perfectly valid, these findings open up opportunities to use transitive tasks for educability, to investigate the role of transitivity in other domains of reasoning, and potentially to benefit the lived experiences of persons with developmental issues.
Highlights
Transitive Inference can help us to understand other areas of sociocognitive development
The overall difference in BD performance between the two tasks was assessed using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
Task was the between-subjects factor, having two levels corresponding to the three-term task versus the extensive-training task
Summary
Transitive Inference (deduce B > D from B > C and C > D) can help us to understand other areas of sociocognitive development. Given the well-accepted applications of transitive tasks for so many purposes, it is surprising to note that one of the most fundamental debates, concerning transitive tasks, has not yet been resolved This debate, perhaps best captured by Bryant (1998), concerns the relative validity of two alternative ways of assessing transitive reasoning. Bryant’s lab used three-term tasks (e.g., Bryant & Kopytynska, 1976) or extrapolations of three-term subseries from larger series (e.g., Pears & Bryant, 1990) This implies acceptance that in certain circumstances, three-term tasks can test the target transitive competence (Bara et al, 2010; cf Stevens, 1951). In the absence of such evidence, it is scientifically prudent to remain open to the alternative view that there might be many ways of generating transitive responses (Ameel et al, 2007; MacLean, Merritt, & Brannon, 2008; Piaget, Grize, Szeminska, & Vinh Bang, 1968/1977; Premack, 2007)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
