| Abstract: | Inferences drawn while reading artificial set inclusion passages tend to be different than those made when reasoning with categorical syllogisms and linear orderings even though all 3 describe transitive relations. The present study tests the hypothesis that this disparity results from reasoners' perceptions of the commonality among category terms. In 3 experiments, students were given artificial set inclusion paragraphs that either contained convergent category terms that possess a common superordinate, similar to what is found in syllogistic reasoning (e.g., R. Revlin et al; see record 1979-22790-001), or they were given divergent category terms that do not possess a common superordinate (similar to R. A. Griggs; see record 1977-11973-001). The perceived commonality among the category terms affected the interpretations of the narrative relations and determined the pattern of inferences that students were willing to draw. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
