The Role o Con en and Con ex in P agma ic Reasoning*
Ma ía Dolo es Valiña, Glo ia Seoane, Mon se a Ma ín, José
Fe nández-Rey & Ma ía José Fe aces
Uni e si y o San iago de Compos ela (Spain)
INTRODUCTION
The aim o his s udy is o de e mine he in luence o a linguis ic o m o condi ional
sen ences and he pola i y o mayo p emises on subjec ´s abili y o eason abou
condi ional ules and hei
con idence in he selec ion o co ec esponses.
The condi ional connec i e “i … hen” exp esses one o he elemen a y
ela ion be ween
an eceden and
consequen p oposi ions. Acco ding o he s anda d logic, a condi ional
o he o m “i p … hen q”
is equi alen o “whene e p … hen q”. Bu he “whene e
… hen” colloquial exp essions s esses he
de e minis ic ela ionship be ween p and
q e ms, and he “i … hen” colloquial exp essions s esses ano he p obabilis ic
ela ionship be ween an eceden and consequen .
The objec i e o he expe imen is o es ha condi ional easoning in he abs ac
con en p oblems a ies as a unc ion o he deg ee o ela ionship be ween an eceden
and consequen o condi ional sen ences and hei pola i y.
_____________
* This pape was p esen ed a he FIFTH CONFERENCE OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY
FOR COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY - ESCOP, celeb a ed in Pa is, Socié é F ançaise de
Psychologie - UNIVERSITÉ DE PARIS-SUD (Sep embe , 12-16, 1992).
In con as he syn ac ic heo y, we conside ed ha pe o mance
shall
gene ally be
be e in he
"whene e ... hen"
han he "i ... hen"
ules. In addi ion, we
also expec ed
unbe e con idence o he
"whene e ... hen"
linguis ic o m.
EXPERIMENT 1
METHOD
Subjec s
Eigh y-eigh subjec s pa icipa ed in his expe imen (50
emales and 38 males). Fo y-
ou subjec s we e alloca ed a
andom o each o he wo expe imen al g oups. All
subjec s we e
s uden s a he college le el (mean age 18 yea s 7 mon hs), a San iago
de Compos ela (Spain).
The subjec s had no p e ious expe ience wi h his ype o asks. They all ac ed as
unpaid olun ee s.
Design
A 2 x 4 x 4 ac o ial design wi h epa ead measu es on he las wo ac o s was
used. The h ee ac o s we e: linguis ic o m o condi ional sen ence ("i … hen”,
“whene e … hen”), ype o condi ional ules: Modus Ponens (MP), Modus Tollens
(MT), A i ma ion o he Consequen (AC) and Denial o he An eceden (NA
) and he
pola i y, wi h he ou possible combina ions o
a i ma i e and nega i e componen s
(AA, AN, NA NN).
The dependen measu es we e: a) co ec answe o
condi ional p oblems and b)
secu i y in he subjec 's
selec ion esponses.
Ma e ials
Fou e sions o he 32 i em condi ional easoning es we e cons uc ed by he
expe imen e s.
These i ems ep esen ed all he possib1e a ia ions o a basic wo-
p emises
condi ional a gumen s acco ding o he ype o ule (MP, MT, AC and DA) and
he pola i y o he componen s o majo p emises (AA, AN, NA, NN).
The p esen a ion o he 32 i ems was andomized and he
easoning p oblems we e
p esen ed in his o de and in he e e se o de
( IA-1 s. A-2; IB-1 s. IB-2).
Task and P ocedu e
Subjec s
we e assigned a andom o one o he wo linguis ic o ms o
he condi ional
sen ences. The e we e 44 subjec s in each
condi ion and hey we e es ed in wo
expe imen al sessions.
Wi hin each o hese wo main g oups we e
gi en he p oblems in a andomized o de
and hal o subjec s we e se he i ems in
e e se o de . All subjec s we e gi en one
e sion o he es bookle s.
Subjec s ecei ed w i en ins uc ions. The subjec 's ask was assume ha he wo p emises
o each condi ional a gumen a e
ue and, on he basis o his knowledge, o selec o a lis o
h ee al e na i es he conclusion ollowed om he p emises.
A second ask was o a e he subjec i e secu i y in he
se selec ion o esponse o
each p oblem. A i e-poin scale was used, whe e 5 mean he maximum sco e and 1 mean
he minimum
secu i y in he subjec 's selec ion esponses.
These ins uc ions we e ead o he subjec s and hey we e asked o eading hem again
o hemsel es. P io o he es
p oblems he e we e wo p ac ice i ems using condi ional
in e ences. Ques ions we e solici ed om he subjec o hey en
su e ha hey
unde s ood he ins uc ions.
Finally, hey we e allowed o wo k a hei own speed.
Resul s
The e was a signi ican main e ec o he ype o ule (F
(3,258) = 70.56; p < .0001)
and a signi ican in e ac i e e ec be ween ype o ule x pola i y
(F (9, 774) = 5,14; p
< .0001 ). The e was no main e ec in ol ing he linguis ic o m o condi ional sen ences;
howe e , he in e ac ion be ween ype o ule x pola i y x linguis ic o m
was signi ican
(F (9, 774) = 2.56; p < .0067).
Fo abs ac condi ional a gumen s, he mean pe cen age o co ec esponses o
MP, MT, AC and NA ules we e 85.57 %, 57.25%, 25.6%, 26.99%, espec i ely.
The e we e no signi ican di e ences o p oblems in ol ing
AC and DA ules, bu
pos hoc compa isons (Tukey's es ) showed ha AC and DA a gumen s we e signi ican ly
(p< .05) mo e di icul han he co esponding MT and MP. On he o he hand, MP
a gumen s we e consis en ly (p< .05) ea lie han MT
a gumen s.
The compa isons (Tukey's es ) o he mean wi hin each ype
o ule indica ed ha
a gumen s wi h AN majo p emises we e
signi ican ly (p < .05) easie o MT ules. On
he o he hand, he e we e signi ican ly less (p< .05) inco ec in e ences DA when he
subjec s easoned wi h condi ional a gumen s ha ing majo p emises wi h wo nega i e
componen s (NN). Fo AC ules, a gumen s in ol ing a majo p emises wi h AA pola i y
we e, in
ac , signi ican ly (p< .05) easie
han hose
in ol ing he denial o a
componen o he majo p emise.
Finally when hey easoned wi h "i ...
hen"
condi ional sen ences and MP ules,
a gumen s in ol ing AA majo p emises
we e signi ícan ly (p< .05) mo e di icul han
hose wi h AN
and NA pola i y. Bu wi h "whene e ... hen" condi ional sen ences
and MP ules, hese a gumen s (AA) we e easie (p< .05)
han hose in ol ing
AN o NA pola i y.
A inal issue in ol es an examina ion o he e ec s o he h ee manipula ed ac o s on
subjec i e con idence in he co ec
subjec 's easoning pe o mance. A 2 x 4 x 4
(linguis ic o m x
ype o ule x pola i y) ac o ial design, wi h epea ed measu es on he las
wo ac o s was used. The e was also signi ican main
e ec s o ype o ule F (3,258) =
72.73; p < .001)
.
Tukey's compa isons (p < .05)
e ealed be e secu i y o he MP
p oblems han hose MT, AC and DA. Mo eo e , he con idence ha a subjec has abou
his logical pe o mance was signi ican ly g ea e (p < .05) o AC and DA p oblems han
hose MT ules.
The e was also a signi ican ype o ule x linguis ic o m in e ac ion (F (3,258) = 3.52; p<.
0156).
The compa isons (Tukey's es ) o he means o “i … hen” a gumen s and
"whene e ... hen"
condi ionals o each ype o ule, showed ha
MP, MT
and AC
ules wi h "i ... hen" sen ences we e signi ican ly (p< .05)
easie han he co esponding
"whene e ... hen"
p emises. The DA ule was signi ican ly (p < .05) easie o
"i ...
hen”
p emises.
EXPERIMENT 2
The aim o his expe imen is o explo e he impo ance o :
a) ype o hema ic con en
and b) ac ual ela ionship be ween he p and q e ms o condi ional sen ence, on he subjec ´s
pe o mance and on he subjec 's co ec esponse con idence.
The expe imen 1 ailed o show any signi ican di e ence be ween he pe o mance on
he “i p hen q” and “whene e p hen q”
condi ional ules. In his expe imen , he ma e ials
we e composed o hema ic elemen s in a cohe en ela ionship be ween an eceden and
consequen o majo p emise. I is possible o hypo hesize ha such cases
should p oduce
acili a ion
pe o mance.
To assess his hypo hesis, in expe imen 2 he deg ee o ac ual
ela ionship be ween he
wo componen s o majo p emises was man ipula ed.
We also assessed he e ec s o di e en hema ic con en . I people eason using syn ac ic
ules nei he ype o con en should be mo
e e ec i e in i sel . In con as , i people eason
using
p agma ic easoning schemas (Cheng & Holyoak, 1985, 1989; Cheng, Holyoak,
Nisbe & Oli e , 1986)
pe o mance on he causal and p omises/ h ea s
p oblems should be
supe io o pe o mance in he empo al
condi ion.

METHOD
Subjec s
The subjec s we e nine y-six s uden s (47 males and 49 e
males) a he college le el
(mean age 18 yea s, 5 mon hs) a
San iago o Compos ela (Spain).
They all pa icipa ed as unpaid olun ee s in his s udy. None
o hese subjec s ha e
ecei ed any ins uc ion in logic and
none o hem had pa icipa ed in he expe imen 1.
Design
A
3 x 4
x 3 ( ype o con en x ype o condi ional ule x p obabili y o ac ual ela ion
be ween an eceden and consequen ) ac o ial design was used. The ype o con en
ac o had h ee le els: Causal con en , Tempo al and P omises/Th ea s con en .
This
ac o was manipula ed be ween
subjec s, wi h 48 pa icipan s andomly assigned o each
expe imen al
g oups.
The epa ead measu es on he las wo ac o s was used. The second
ac o ( ype o
condi ional ule) was simila o he e
xpe imen 1. Finally, he las ac o (deg ee o ac ual
ela ion be ween an eceden and consequen o majo p emise) had
h ee le els: De e minis ic,
P obabilis íc o Wi hou Rela ion.
Ma e ials
Six a ia ions o he 24 condi ional easoning es we e
used. Tes bookle s we e
cons uc ed each con aining an
ins uc ion page and he condi ional easoning p oblems
p esen ed on sepa a e pages.
The e we e 24 condi ional a gumen s o each o h ee di e en con ex s: a)
Causal (IIA-1, IIA-2; g.“I you all o he wa e hen you will ge we you sel ”,
b) Tempo al (IIB-1, IIB-2; g.“i oday is monday hen yes e day was sunday”
and c) P omises/Th ea s (IIC-1, IIC-2; g.“I you ha e he snack hen I ake you
o a walk”).
As in expe imen 1, each bookle was p epa ed con aining condi ional a gumen s
acco ding o he ype o logical ule (MP, MT, AC and DA). Finally, he
condi ional sen ences di e ed acco ding o he p obabili y o ac ual ela ionship
be ween an eceden and consequen o majo p emise: a) De e minis ic ( g. “i
you pu you hand in o i e hen you will bu n you sel ”), b) P obabilis ic ( g. “i
you s udy hen you pass”) and c) Wi hou Rela ion ( g. “i you a e ugly hen you
a e pleasan ”).
These sen ences we e based on p e ious expe imen al wo k. 100 unde g adua e
Psychology s uden s om he Uni e si y o San iago de Compos ela we e equi ed o
w i e 20 condi ional sen ences wi h causal con en , 20 condi ional sen ences wi h
empo al con en and ano he 20 wi h p omises/ h ea s. A u he 100 simila subjec s
ook pa in a pos e io s udy. The subjec ´s ask was o a e he p obabili y o ac ual
ela ion be ween an eceden and consequen o hese condi ional sen ences. Finally,
he condi ionals wi h a maximum deg ee o ag eemen be ween he subjec s we e
selec ed by he expe imen e s o he easoning p oblems es o expe imen 2.
The o de o p esen a ion o he i ems wi hin each bookle was andomized as hose
o expe imen 1.
Task and p ocedu e
In gene al, he p ocedu e was he same as ha used in he p e ious expe imen . The
s udy was un in h ee expe imen al sessions. Thi y- h ee subjec s we e alloca ed a
andom o each o he h ee expe imen al g oups (causal con en , empo al con en o
p omises/ h ea s) in he condi ional es p oblems.
As in expe imen 1, subjec s we e equi ed o selec a
conclusion which necessa ily
ollowed om he p emises o each condi ional a gumen and o a e he secu i y in hei
selec ion o esponse. A i e-poin scale was used.
Subjec s we e gi en unlimi ed ime o ca y ou he ask.
Resul s
An ana1ysis o a iance o he co ec ness o subjec 's answe
o each o he es i em
indica ed ha he e we e signi ican main e ec s o : ype o ule (F (3,275 = 38.28);
p< .0001), he ype o con en (F (2, 186) = 4.92; p<. 0093) and p obabili y o ac ual
ela ionship be ween an eceden and consequen o he majo p emise (F(2, 186) =
9.3; p< .0001).
Fo hema ic condi ional a gumen s, he mean pe cen ages o co ec esponses o MP,
MT, AC and DA ules we e
83.30 %,
60.57 %, 44.97 % and 36.76%, espec i ely. The
compa isons (Tukey´s es )
o each ype o ule showed ha MP condi ional a gumen s
we e signi ican ly (p< .05) easie han he co esponding MT,
AC and DA a gumen s. On
he o he hand, MT condi ional a gumen s we e
consis en ly easie (p< .05) han AC and DA
p oblems and,
inally, AC i ems we e easie (p
< .05) han hose o DA condi ional
p oblems.
Tes o he simple main e ec s showed ha subjec ´s pe o mance wi h causal
con en was signi ican ly (p< .05) be e han he empo al and p omises/ h ea s
con en s. The e we e no signi ican di e ences o p oblems in ol ing empo al
con en o p omises/ h ea s included in he p emises.
Tukey´s es compa ison o he ac ual ela ion be ween an eceden and consequen
o condi ional sen ence (p< .05) demons a ed ha he subjec s pe o med be e when
hey easoned wi h de e minis ic ela ions be ween he wo componen s o he majo
p emise.
The e we e also a signi ican in e ac i e e ec be ween ac ual ela ion x ype o
con en (F (4, 186) = 2.80; p< .0273 and be ween ac ual ela ion x ype o ule (F (6,
558) = 13.79; p< .0001. Tukey´s compa isons (p < .05) indica ed signi ican ly be e
pe o mance on he de e minis ic ela ion han on ei he o he o he wo ypes o
ela ions, wi h causal con en and p omises/ h ea s in he p emises. Bu , wi h empo al
con en , he p obabilis ic ela ion be ween an eceden and consequen showed he
g ea es pe o mance (p < .05).
On he o he hand, inspec ion o pai ed compa isons o he ac ual ela ion x ype o
ule e ealed ha subjec s make mo e co ec esponses wi h he MP, MT, AC ules
in he de e minis ic ela ion (p< .05). Bu also indica ed ha judging conce ning DA
in e ences a e o en mo e co ec wi h p obabilis ic ac ual ela ion be ween he wo
componen s o majo p emise (p< .05).
As in expe imen 1, subjec i e secu i y was examined. As in ea lie expe imen he e
was a signi ican main e ec s o he ype o ule (F (3, 279) = 14.90; p< .0001).
Tukey´s compa isons (p< .05) o he main e ec o he ype o ule (F( 3, 279) =
14.90; p< .0001). Tukey´s compa isons (p< .05) o he main e ec o ype o ule
also showed g ea e secu i y on he MP p oblems han on he o he h ee ules (p<
.05). No o he compa isons we e signi ican .
Las ly, he e we e signi ican main e ec s o p obabili y o ac ual ela ion (F ( 2, 186) =
10.29; p < .0001) and a
signi ican in e ac ion be ween ac ual ela ion x ype o con en (F
(4, 186) = 3.72; p < .0062). Tukey's compa isons (p < .05) o
ac ual ela ion showed
signi ican di e ences in he de e minis ic condi ion and he o he wo ela ionships.
Inspec ion o pai ed compa isons o he ac ual ela ion x ype o
con en in e ac ion
showed ha wi h empo al con en
he subjec s a e mo e he secu i y in he selec ion o
esponse in he p obabilis ic ela ionship condi ion. Ne e heless, he de e minis ic ela ion
showed he highes sco es on each o he wo emaining
con en o p oblems.
REFERENCES
B aine, M.D.S. (1978). On he ela ion be ween he na u al logic
o easoning and s anda d
logic. Psychological Re iew, 85(1), 1-21.
By ne, R.M.J. (1989). E e yday easoning wi h condi ional sequences. The Qua e ly
Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology, 41A(1),
141-166.
Cheng, P.W., & Holyoak, K.J. (1985). P agma ic easoning
schemas. Cogni i e
Psychology, 17(4), 391-416.