Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T12:45:49.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unless Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Juan A. García-Madruga*
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
Nuria Carriedo
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
Sergio Moreno-Ríos
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Francisco Gutiérrez
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
Walter Schaeken
Affiliation:
Leuven University (Belgium)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Prof. Juan A. García-Madruga, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, UNED – 28040, Madrid, Spain. Phone: 913986259. FAX: 913987951. Email: jmadruga@psi.uned.es

Abstract

We report the results of two experiments investigating conditional inferences from conditional unless assertions, such as Juan is not in León unless Nuria is in Madrid. Experiments 1 and 2 check Fillenbaum's hypothesis about the semantic similarity of unless with if not and only if assertions; both also examine inferential endorsements (Experiment 1) and endorsements and latencies (Experiment 2) of the four logically equivalent conditional formulations: if A then B, if not-B then not-A, A only if B and not-A unless B. The results of these experiments show the similarity of unless and only if, confirming that the representation of both conditionals from the outset probably include two possibilities directionally oriented from B to A; results also confirm the especial difficulty of unless assertions. The implications of the results are discussed in the context of recent psychological and linguistic theories of the meaning of unless.

Se presentan los resultados de dos experimentos que investigan las inferencias a partir de enunciados condicionales a menos que, tales como “Juan no está en León a menos que Nuria esté en Madrid”. Los experimentos 1 y 2 comprueban la hipótesis de Fillenbaum sobre la similaridad semántica de los enunciados a menos que con si no y sólo si; ambos experimentos examinan las respuestas inferenciales (Experimento 1) y las respuestas inferenciales y las latencias (Experimento 2) de las cuatro formulaciones condicionales lógicamente equivalentes: si A entonces B, si no-B entonces no-A, A sólo si B y no-A a menos que B. Los resultados muestran la similaridad de a menos que y sólo si, confirmando que la representación de ambos condicionales probablemente incluya desde el principio dos posibilidades orientadas direccionalmente desde B a A; los resultados también confirman la dificultad especial de las afirmaciones del tipo a menos que. Las implicaciones de los resultados se comentan en el contexto de las teorías psicológicas y lingüísticas sobre el significado de a menos que.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

References

Braine, M.D.S. (1978). On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standardlogic. Psychological Review, 85, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M.D.S., & O'Brien, D. (1998). Mental logic. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriedo, N., García-Madruga, J., Gutiérrez, F., & Moreno, S. (1999). How does content affect unless conditional reasoning? Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 271277). Sienna, Italy.Google Scholar
Cheng, P., & Holyoak, K. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive psychology, 17, 391416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. (1998). Conditionals and prediction. Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2002). Mental space embeddings, counterfactuality and the use of unless. English language and Linguistics, 6, 367–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R., & Reed, S. (2000). The semantics and pragmatics of unless. English language and linguistics, 4, 201241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, S. M., Byrne, R. M. J., & García-Madruga, J. A. (2007). Factual and counterfactual ‘only if’ conditionals. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Espino, O., Santamaría, & C., García-Madruga, J. A. (2000). Activation of end-terms in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 6, 6789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T. (1977). Linguistic factors in reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 297306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T. (1993). The mental model theory of conditional reasoning: Critical appraisal and revision. Cognition, 48, 120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J.Bt.B.T. (in press). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.Google Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T., & Beck, M.A. (1981). Directionality and temporal factors in conditional reasoning. Current psychological research, 1, 111120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T., Clibbens, J., & Rood, B. (1995). Bias in conditional inference: Implications for mental models and mental logic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 644670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J.Bt.B.T., Clibbens, J., & Rood, B. (1996). The role of explicit and implicit negation in conditional reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 392409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T., Legrenzi, P., & Girotto, V. (1999). The influence of linguistic form on reasoning: The case of matching bias. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 185216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.St.B.T., & Handley, S.J. (1999) The role of negation in conditional inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 739769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T., Newstead, S.E., & Byrne, R.M.J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T., & Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.Bt.B.T., Over, D. E., & Handley, S. J. (2005). Supposition, extensionality and conditionals: A critique of Johnson-Laird & Byrne (2002). Psychological Review, 112, 10401052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). No interpretation without representation: The role of domain-specific representations and inferences in the Wason selection task. Cognition, 77, 179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillenbaum, S. (1976). Inducements: On phrasing and logic of conditional promises, threats and warnings. Psychological Research, 38, 231250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillenbaum, S. (1986). The use of conditionals in inducements and deterrents. In Traugott, E. C., A, ter Meulen, Reilly, J. S., & Ferguson, C.A. (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 179195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Madruga, J. A., Gutiérrez, F., Carriedo, N., Moreno, S., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Mental models in deductive reasoning. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5, 125140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
García-Madruga, J. A., Moreno, S., Carriedo, N., Gutiérrez, F., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2001). Are conjunctive inferences easier than disjunctive inferences? A comparison of rules and models. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54 A(2), 613632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
García-Madruga, J. A, Gutiérrez, F, Carriedo, N., Vila, J. O., & Luzón, J.M. (2007). Mental models in propositional reasoning and working memory's central executive. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 370393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Madruga, J.A., Moreno-Ríos, S., Quelhas, C., & Juhos, C. (2007). Reasoning with ‘Unless’, ‘If not’ and ‘Only if’ Counterfactual Conditionals. Psicológica, in press.Google Scholar
Geis, M.L. (1973). If and unless. In Kachu, B.B., Lees, R.B., Malkiel, Y., Pietrangeli, A., & Saporta, S. (Eds). Issues in linguistics (pp. 231253). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Girotto, V., Mazzoco, A., & Tasso, A. (1997). The effect of premise order in conditional reasoning: a test of the mental model theory. Cognition, 63, 128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosset, N. and Barrouillet, P. (2003). On the nature of mental models of conditional: The case of If, If then and Only if. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 289306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, D. J., Kemmelmeir, M., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2005). Putting ifs to work: Goals-based relevance in conditional directives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 388405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, K.J., & Cheng, P. (1995). Pragmatic reasoning with a point of view: A response. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 289313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Bara, B. G. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16, 161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, inference, and pragmatics. Psychological Review, 109, 646678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R., & Schaeken, W. (1992). Propositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review, 99, 418439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lycan, W. G. (2001). Real conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montolío, E. (1999). Las construcciones condicionales. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V. (Dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1972). Methods of logic (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Reichenback, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santamaría, C., & Espino, O. (2002). Conditionals and directionality: On the meaning of if vs. only if. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 4157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeken, W., Garcia-Madruga, J., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1997). Unless reasoning. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Schaeken, W., & Schroyens, W. (2000). The effect of explicit negatives and different contrast classes on conditional syllogisms. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 533550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroyens, W., Schaeken, W., & D'Ydewalle, G. (2001). The processing of negations in conditional reasoning: a meta-analytic study in mental models and/or mental logic theory. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 121172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1997). UNLESS and BUT conditionals: A historical perspective. In Athanasiadou, A. and Dirven, R. (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 145167). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (1991). Exceptive conditionals: The meaning of unless. North Eastern Linguistics Society, 22, 135–48.Google Scholar
Wason, P. (1965). The context of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, P., & Hull, A. J. (1986). Answering questions about negative conditionals. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 691709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, P., & Hull, A. J. (1988). Reading to do: Creating contingent action plans. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 187211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar