Two theories of logical processing are compared in this study. The Atmosphere Effect, originating in the psychology of reasoning, predicts errors in deductive reasoning based on matching certain features of the premises with features of the conclusion. The Logical Ambiguity Hypothesis, originating in communication theory, predicts reasoning errors on the basis of internal set representations of the relationships implied by the premises. In a series of eight separate tests of the two theories, the Atmosphere Effect was significantly more successful than the Ambiguity Hypothesis in predicting the most likely responses to premise pairs.
Two models of syllogistic reasoning: An empirical comparison
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.