Mental Model Theory versus the Inference Rule Approach in relational reasoning - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue Thinking & Reasoning Année : 2002

Mental Model Theory versus the Inference Rule Approach in relational reasoning

Résumé

Researchers currently working on relational reasoning typically argue that mental model theory (MMT) is a better account than the inference rule approach (IRA). They predict and observe that determinate (or one-model) problems are easier than indeterminate (or two-model) problems whereas according to them, IRA should lead to the opposite prediction. However, the predictions attributed to IRA are based on a mistaken argument. The IRA is generally presented in such a way that inference rules only deal with determinate relations and not with indeterminate ones. However, a) there is no reason to presuppose that rule-based procedure could not deal with indeterminate relations, and b) applying a rule-based procedure to indeterminate relations should result in greater difficulty. Hence, none of the recent articles devoted to relational reasoning currently presents a conclusive case for discarding IRA by using the well-known determinate vs. indeterminate problems comparison.

Domaines

Psychologie
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
thinkingANDreasoning-MMTvsIRA.pdf (125.7 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Loading...

Dates et versions

hal-00000174 , version 1 (06-02-2003)

Identifiants

  • HAL Id : hal-00000174 , version 1

Citer

Jean-Baptiste van Der Henst. Mental Model Theory versus the Inference Rule Approach in relational reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 2002, 8, pp.193-205. ⟨hal-00000174⟩

Collections

ISC L2C2 ISC-MJ
55 Consultations
1415 Téléchargements

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More