Human Reasoning¶
Evans, Newstead, & Byrne. (1993). Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Belief Bias
- Psychology of reasoning — the home turf: the canonical demonstration of belief–logic conflict (Evans, Barston & Pollard 1983), where the validity × believability factorial exposes the substitution of a plausibility check for a logical-form check. Dual-process reasoning research — belief bias is a central case in which a fast belief-driven process and a slow rule-following one deliver conflicting verdicts, used to probe the balance between the two. The validity × believability factorial as a portable instrument — the 2×2 design became a workhorse exported across reasoning tasks (syllogistic, conditional, statistical) to pry a normatively correct response apart from a believability-matched one.
This sourceThe Evans, Newstead and Byrne textbook on deduction, whose belief-bias chapter treats the effect as an interaction between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning, in a book that also covers conditional and statistical reasoning.
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“Chapter 8 includes discussion of the belief bias effect in syllogistic reasoning as well”
- Psychology of reasoning — the home turf: the canonical demonstration of belief–logic conflict (Evans, Barston & Pollard 1983), where the validity × believability factorial exposes the substitution of a plausibility check for a logical-form check. Dual-process reasoning research — belief bias is a central case in which a fast belief-driven process and a slow rule-following one deliver conflicting verdicts, used to probe the balance between the two. The validity × believability factorial as a portable instrument — the 2×2 design became a workhorse exported across reasoning tasks (syllogistic, conditional, statistical) to pry a normatively correct response apart from a believability-matched one.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:52ccd35416d9 · see in the full table