We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Reasoning about Durations.
- Authors
Kelly, Laura Jane; Khemlani, Sangeet; Johnson-Laird, P. N.
- Abstract
A set of assertions is consistent provided they can all be true at the same time. Naive individuals could prove consistency using the formal rules of a logical calculus, but it calls for them to fail to prove the negation of one assertion from the remainder in the set. An alternative procedure is for them to use an intuitive system (System 1) to construct a mental model of all the assertions. The task should be easy in this case. However, some sets of consistent assertions have no intuitive models and call for a deliberative system(System2) to construct an alternativemodel. Formal rules and mental models therefore make different predictions. We report three experiments that tested their respective merits. The participants assessed the consistency of temporal descriptions based on statements using "during" and "before." They were more accurate for consistent problems with intuitive models than for those that called for deliberative models. There was no robust difference in accuracy between consistent and inconsistent problems. The results therefore corroborated the model theory.
- Subjects
MODEL theory; FORECASTING; CALCULUS
- Publication
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2020, Vol 32, Issue 11, p2103
- ISSN
0898-929X
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1162/jocn_a_01621