Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Counterexamples in sentential reasoning.

P N Johnson-Laird1, Uri Hasson

  • 1Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. phil@princeton.edu

Memory & Cognition
|January 6, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Author Correction: Temporal structure of natural language processing in the human brain corresponds to layered hierarchy of large language models.

Nature communications·2026
Same author

A predictive processing framework for joint action and communication.

Physics of life reviews·2026
Same author

Linguistic coupling between neural systems for speech production and comprehension during real-time dyadic conversations.

Neuron·2025
Same author

Temporal structure of natural language processing in the human brain corresponds to layered hierarchy of large language models.

Nature communications·2025
Same author

Aligning brains into a shared space improves their alignment with large language models.

Nature computational science·2025
Same author

Brains and language models converge on a shared conceptual space across different languages.

ArXiv·2025
Same journal

Limited protective effects of multilingualism against age-related cognitive decline.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Validation of illustrated texts: Can pictures raise awareness of inconsistencies?

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

4I remember (and forget) your happy smiling face: Directed forgetting of emotionally expressive faces of in-group and out-group members.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Identity in the spotlight: Matching faces without overlapping features.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Test delay and change awareness moderate retroactive and proactive memory effects.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

The Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) illusion in short-term memory: Opposite effects of retention interval on true and false recognition.

Memory & cognition·2026
See all related articles

Logically naive individuals often refute invalid inferences by constructing counterexamples, which are scenarios consistent with premises but not the conclusion. This strategy was more prevalent when conclusions were consistent with premises.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Logic
  • Human Reasoning

Background:

  • Understanding how individuals evaluate logical validity is crucial in cognitive science.
  • Naive reasoners may employ different strategies than formal logic dictates.
  • Sentential connectives (e.g., 'if', 'and', 'or') are fundamental to logical inference.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the strategies employed by logically naive individuals to identify invalid inferences.
  • To determine the frequency and conditions under which counterexamples are used.
  • To examine the role of justification in strategy selection.

Main Methods:

  • Three experiments were conducted to examine refutation strategies for invalid inferences.
  • Participants were asked to evaluate the validity of inferences based on sentential connectives.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Methods included justification tasks and analysis of strategy use (e.g., counterexamples, exhaustive search).

    • Main Results:

    • Counterexamples were the most frequently used strategy by participants to refute invalid inferences.
    • Counterexamples were more likely to be used when the invalid conclusion was consistent with the premises.
    • No significant difference in strategy use was found between participants who provided justifications and those who did not.

    Conclusions:

    • Logically naive individuals predominantly rely on the counterexample method to detect invalid inferences.
    • The presentation of the invalid conclusion influences the likelihood of employing a counterexample strategy.
    • Justification requirements do not appear to alter the fundamental strategies used in refuting invalid logical arguments.