Inductive reasoning and semantic cognition: More than just different names for the same thing?

We describe evidence that certain inductive phenomena are associated with IQ, that different inductive phenomena emerge at different ages, and that the effects of causal knowledge on induction are decreased under conditions of memory load. On the basis of this evidence we argue that there is more to inductive reasoning than semantic cognition.

Causal knowledge and the development of inductive reasoning

We explored the development of sensitivity to causal relations in children’s inductive reasoning. Children (5-, 8-, and 12-year-olds) and adults were given trials in which they decided whether a property known to be possessed by members of one category was also possessed by members of (a) a taxonomically related category or (b) a causally related category. The direction of the causal link was either predictive (prey → predator) or diagnostic (predator → prey), and the property that participants reasoned about established either a taxonomic or causal context. There was a causal asymmetry effect across all age groups, with more causal choices when the causal link was predictive than when it was diagnostic. Furthermore, context-sensitive causal reasoning showed a curvilinear development, with causal choices being most frequent for 8-year-olds regardless of context. Causal inductions decreased thereafter because 12-year-olds and adults made more taxonomic choices when reasoning in the taxonomic context. These findings suggest that simple causal relations may often be the default knowledge structure in young children’s inductive reasoning, that sensitivity to causal direction is present early on, and that children over-generalize their causal knowledge when reasoning.

Relations between premise similarity and inductive strength

According to the diversity principle, diverse evidence is strong evidence. There has been considerable evidence that people respect this principle in inductive reasoning. However, exceptions may be particularly informative. Medin, Coley, Storms, and Hayes (2003) introduced a relevance theory of inductive reasoning and used this theory to predict exceptions, including the nondiversity-by-property-reinforcement effect. A new experiment in which this phenomenon was investigated is reported here. Subjects made inductive strength judgments and similarity judgments for stimuli from Medin et al. (2003). The inductive strength judgments showed the same pattern as that in Medin et al. (2003); however, the similarity judgments suggested that the pattern should be interpreted as a diversity effect, rather than as a nondiversity effect. It is concluded that the evidence regarding the predicted nondiversity-by-property-reinforcement effect does not give distinctive support for relevance theory, although this theory does address other results.

The Engine of Thought Is a Hybrid: Roles of Associative and Structured Knowledge in Reasoning

Across a range of domains in psychology different theories assume different mental representations of knowledge. For example, in the literature on category-based inductive reasoning, certain theories (e.g., Rogers & McClelland, 2004; Sloutsky & Fisher, 2008) assume that the knowledge upon which inductive inferences are based is associative, whereas others (e.g., Heit & Rubinstein, 1994; Kemp & Tenenbaum, 2009; Osherson, Smith, Wilkie, López, & Shafir, 1990) assume that knowledge is structured. In this article we investigate whether associative and structured knowledge underlie inductive reasoning to different degrees under different processing conditions. We develop a measure of knowledge about the degree of association between categories and show that it dissociates from measures of structured knowledge. In Experiment 1 participants rated the strength of inductive arguments whose categories were either taxonomically or causally related. A measure of associative strength predicted reasoning when people had to respond fast, whereas causal and taxonomic knowledge explained inference strength when people responded slowly. In Experiment 2, we also manipulated whether the causal link between the categories was predictive or diagnostic. Participants preferred predictive to diagnostic arguments except when they responded under cognitive load. In Experiment 3, using an open-ended induction paradigm, people generated and evaluated their own conclusion categories. Inductive strength was predicted by associative strength under heavy cognitive load, whereas an index of structured knowledge was more predictive of inductive strength under minimal cognitive load. Together these results suggest that associative and structured models of reasoning apply best under different processing conditions and that the application of structured knowledge in reasoning is often effortful.

Who is susceptible to conjunction fallacies in category-based induction?

Recent evidence suggests that the conjunction fallacy observed in people's probabilistic reasoning is also to be found in their evaluations of inductive argument strength. We presented 130 participants with materials likely to produce a conjunction fallacy either by virtue of a shared categorical or a causal relationship between the categories in the argument. We also took a measure of participants' cognitive ability. We observed conjunction fallacies overall with both sets of materials but found an association with ability for the categorical materials only. Our results have implications for accounts of individual differences in reasoning, for the relevance theory of induction, and for the recent claim that causal knowledge is important in inductive reasoning.

A defeasible reasoning model of inductive concept learning from examples and communication

This paper introduces a logical model of inductive generalization, and specifically of the machine learning task of inductive concept learning (ICL). We argue that some inductive processes, like ICL, can be seen as a form of defeasible reasoning. We define a consequence relation characterizing which hypotheses can be induced from given sets of examples, and study its properties, showing they correspond to a rather well-behaved non-monotonic logic. We will also show that with the addition of a preference relation on inductive theories we can characterize the inductive bias of ICL algorithms. The second part of the paper shows how this logical characterization of inductive generalization can be integrated with another form of non-monotonic reasoning (argumentation), to define a model of multiagent ICL. This integration allows two or more agents to learn, in a consistent way, both from induction and from arguments used in the communication between them. We show that the inductive theories achieved by multiagent induction plus argumentation are sound, i.e. they are precisely the same as the inductive theories built by a single agent with all data. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.

Deciding between theories of how reasoning develops is hard

Although Sloutsky agrees with our interpretation of our data, he argues that the totality of the evidence supports his claim that children make inductive generalisations on the basis of similarity. Here we take issue with his characterisation of the alternative hypotheses in his informal analysis of the data, and suggest that a thorough Bayesian analysis, although practically very difficult, is likely to result in a more finely balanced outcome than he suggests. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Mathematical prerequisites for learning statistics in Psychology: Assessing core skills of numeracy and mathematical reasoning among undergraduates.

This study sought to extend earlier work by Mulhern and Wylie (2004) to investigate a UK-wide sample of psychology undergraduates. A total of 890 participants from eight universities across the UK were tested on six broadly defined components of mathematical thinking relevant to the teaching of statistics in psychology - calculation, algebraic reasoning, graphical interpretation, proportionality and ratio, probability and sampling, and estimation. Results were consistent with Mulhern and Wylie's (2004) previously reported findings. Overall, participants across institutions exhibited marked deficiencies in many aspects of mathematical thinking. Results also revealed significant gender differences on calculation, proportionality and ratio, and estimation. Level of qualification in mathematics was found to predict overall performance. Analysis of the nature and content of errors revealed consistent patterns of misconceptions in core mathematical knowledge , likely to hamper the learning of statistics.