Scholarlink

<p>In reasoning experiments, participants usually evaluate conclusions by clicking on predefined response alternatives or rating scales. However, such response formats may elicit specific cognitive reasoning strategies. To avoid such biases, we employed an open response format, allowing participants to formulate and explain their conclusions freely in complete sentences. Across two experiments, participants generated over 1,300 written responses, which we categorized as <i>certain, uncertain based on counterexamples, </i>or<i> uncertain based on probabilities</i>, using a predefined coding scheme. Participants frequently provided certain responses rather than expressing graded degrees of belief. When uncertainty was expressed, it was more often justified by concrete counterexamples than by probabilistic reasoning. We introduce the term <i>probabilistic masking</i> to describe the phenomenon whereby graded response formats may suppress the consideration of certain inferences or counterexamples, thereby biasing empirical accounts of human inference toward probabilistic interpretations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reasoning beyond clicks: Disentangling counterexamples and probabilities in conditional reasoning

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月4日

查看全文
  • Markus Knauff,
  • Lupita Estefania Gazzo Castañeda

摘要

In reasoning experiments, participants usually evaluate conclusions by clicking on predefined response alternatives or rating scales. However, such response formats may elicit specific cognitive reasoning strategies. To avoid such biases, we employed an open response format, allowing participants to formulate and explain their conclusions freely in complete sentences. Across two experiments, participants generated over 1,300 written responses, which we categorized as certain, uncertain based on counterexamples, or uncertain based on probabilities, using a predefined coding scheme. Participants frequently provided certain responses rather than expressing graded degrees of belief. When uncertainty was expressed, it was more often justified by concrete counterexamples than by probabilistic reasoning. We introduce the term probabilistic masking to describe the phenomenon whereby graded response formats may suppress the consideration of certain inferences or counterexamples, thereby biasing empirical accounts of human inference toward probabilistic interpretations.