Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-l8tfn Total loading time: 0.89 Render date: 2022-06-30T08:41:49.059Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true
Reasoning Reasoning
Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations
Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

Book contents

19 - Properties of Inductive Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Evan Heit
Edited by
Jonathan E. Adler  and
Lance J. Rips
Evan Heit
Affiliation:
University of California
Jonathan E. Adler
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Lance J. Rips
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Get access

Summary

Imagine that during an evening while you are out at the theater, your home is broken into and several personal items are stolen. This sudden event, in addition to having practical and possibly emotional consequences, is going to lead to changes in your beliefs and predictions about the future. Whereas you may have previously thought that your home was secure, you may now believe, on the basis of this one event, that it is rather likely that your home will be burgled again.

In the terms of inductive reasoning, you may well see similarities between one case – your home on this particular evening – and future cases – that is, your home on other, future evenings – leading you to project a predicate – being burgled – from the one case to the others. Of course, carrying out this sort of inductive reasoning would be more complicated, because there are the many past cases of evenings on which your home has not been burgled, and these cases too seem to have implications for the future. In addition, other information may be useful, such as whether or not nearby homes have been burgled recently. It seems that due to the similarity in location, knowing the history of other homes would help you to predict the safety of your own home.

Type
Chapter
Information
Reasoning
Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations
 , pp. 353 - 382
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Purchase

Buy Book

Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

References

Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. (1898). Novum organum. London: George Bell and Sons. (Original work published 1620).Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A., Markman, E. M., & Melartin, R. L. (1993). Infants' ability to draw inferences about nonobvious object properties: Evidence from exploratory play. Child Development, 64, 711–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 629–654.Google ScholarPubMed
Box, G. E. P., & Tiao, G. C. (1973). Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Smith, E. E. (1997). Culture, category salience, and inductive reasoning. Cognition, 65, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (1997). Does rank have its privilege? Inductive inferences within folkbiological taxonomies. Cognition, 64, 73–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., Proffitt, J. B., Lynch, E. B., & Atran, S. (1999). Inductive reasoning in folkbiological thought. In Medin, D. L. & Atran, S. (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 205–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Florian, J. E. (1994). Stripes do not a zebra make, or do they: Conceptual and perceptual information in inductive inference. Developmental Psychology, 30, 88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, L. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1984). Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 234–257.Google ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 65–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., & Coley, J. D. (1990). The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird: Categories and inferences in 2-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 26, 796–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., & O'Reilly, A. W. (1988). Children's inductive inferences within superordinate categories: The role of language and category structure. Child Development, 59, 876–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1972). Problems and projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Gutheil, G., & Gelman, S. A. (1997). Children's use of sample size and diversity information within basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadjichristidis, D., Sloman, S. A., Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. (1999). Centrality and property induction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 795). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hahn, U., & Chater, N. (1997). Concepts and similarity. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 43–92). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Heit, E. (1997). Knowledge and concept learning. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 7–41). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Heit, E. (1998). A Bayesian analysis of some forms of inductive reasoning. In Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 248–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heit, E., & Bott, L. (2000). Knowledge selection in category learning. In Medin, D. L. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 39, pp. 163–199). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heit, E., & Hahn, U. (1999). Diversity-based reasoning in children age 5 to 8. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 212–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heit, E., & Rubinstein, J. (1994). Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 411–422.Google ScholarPubMed
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Homa, D., & Vosburgh, R. (1976). Category breadth and the abstraction of prototypical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 2, 322–330.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1988). An enquiry concerning human understanding. La Salle, IL: Open Court. (Original work published 1748).Google Scholar
Kalish, C. W., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). On wooden pillows: Multiple classifications and children's category-based inductions. Child Development, 63, 1536–1557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassaline, M. E. (1996). Structural alignment in induction and similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 754–770.Google ScholarPubMed
Loose, J. J., & Mareschal, D. (1999). Inductive reasoning revisited: Children's reliance on category labels and appearances. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 320–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
López, A. (1995). The diversity principle in the testing of arguments. Memory & Cognition, 23, 374–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López, A., Atran, S., Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folkbiological taxonomies and inductions. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 251–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, A., Gelman, S. A., Gutheil, G., & Smith, E. E. (1992). The development of category-based induction. Child Development, 63, 1070–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macario, J. F., Shipley, E. F., & Billman, D. O. (1990). Induction from a single instance: Formation of a novel category. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1996). Drinking and driving don't mix: Inductive generalization in infancy. Cognition, 59, 307–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (1998). Studies in inductive inference in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 60–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, J. M., & McDonough, L. (2000). Advancing downward to the basic level. Journal of Cognition & Development, 1, 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J., Samuels, M., & Rispoli, J. (1996). A hypothesis assessment model of categorical argument strength. Cognition, 59, 199–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., & Atran, S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?Cognitive Psychology, 32, 49–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1874). A system of logic. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L., & Ross, B. H. (1999). Induction with cross-classified categories. Memory & Cognition, 27, 1024–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagel, E. (1939). Principles of the theory of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Myers, T. S., Shafir, E., & Stob, M. (1994). Extrapolating human probability judgment. Theory & Decision, 36, 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, D. N., Stern, J., Wilkie, O., Stob, M., & Smith, E. E. (1991). Default probability. Cognitive Science, 15, 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proffitt, J. B., Coley, J. L., & Medin, D. L. (2000). Expertise and category-based induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 811–828.Google ScholarPubMed
Raiffa, H., & Schlaifer, R. (1961). Applied statistical decision theory. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 665–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. G., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 495–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, E. F. (1993). Categories, hierarchies, and induction. In Medin, D. L. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 30, pp. 265–301). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1994). When explanations compete: The role of explanatory coherence on judgments of likelihood. Cognition, 52, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloman, S. A. (1997). Explanatory coherence and the induction of properties. Thinking & Reasoning, 2, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1998). Categorical inference is not a tree: The myth of inheritance hierarchies. Cognitive Psychology, 35, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E., Shafir, E., & Osherson, D. (1993). Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability. Cognition, 49, 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spellman, B. A., López, A., & Smith, E. E. (1999). Hypothesis testing: Strategy selection for generalising versus limiting hypotheses. Thinking & Reasoning, 5, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, K. (1992). Children's awareness of the biological implications of kinship. Child Development, 63, 950–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, S. R., Lynch, E. B., Casey, K. L., & Baer, L. (1997). Setters and samoyeds: The emergence of subordinate level categories as a basis for inductive inference in preschool-age children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1074– 1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, M., & Gentner, D. (1998). Structure in category-based induction. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1154–1158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×