Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”

References

• Baratgin, J., Politzer, G., & Over, D. E. (2013). Uncertainty and the de Finetti tables. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3), 308–328. doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.809018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 57–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, J. (2003 ). A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, M. H. (2013). True-and-error models violate independence and yet they are testable. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 717–737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackmore, D. (2004). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blome-Tillmann, M. (2013). Conventional implicatures (and how to spot them). Philosophy Compass, 8, 170–185.
   Google Scholar
• Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Doran, R., Ward, G., Larson, M., McNabb, Y., & Baker, R. E. (2012). A novel experimental paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated. Language, 88(1), 124–154. doi:10.1353/lan.2012.0008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douven, I. (2015a). The epistemology of indicative conditionals. F ormal and empirical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douven, I. (2015b). How to account for the oddness of missing-link conditionals. Synthese, 194(5), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0756-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douven, I., & Verbrugge, S. (2012). Indicatives, concessives, and evidential support. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(4), 480–499. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.716009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgington, D. (2003). What if? Questions about conditionals. Mind & Language, 18, 380–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elqayam, S., & Over, D. E. (2013). New paradigm psychology of reasoning: An introduction to the special issue. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 249–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdfelder, E., Auer, T., Hilbig, B. E., Aßfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 108–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. (2004). If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frege, G. (1892). Über sinn und bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.
   Google Scholar
• Garmut, L. T. F. (1991). Logic, language, and meaning (Vol. 1). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grünwald, P. (2007). The minimum description length principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., & Moshagen, M. (2014). Generalized outcome-based strategy classification: Comparing deterministic and probabilistic choice models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1431–1443. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0643-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iten, C. B. (2000). ‘Non-Truth-Conditional’ meaning, relevance and concessives ( Doctoral dissertation). University of London. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1348747/1/324676.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jeffrey, R. C. (1991). Matter of fact conditionals. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 65, 161–183.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646–678. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.4.646
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karabatsos, G. (2005). The exchangeable multinominal model as an approach for testing axioms of choice and measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 51–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellen, D., Klauer, K. C., & Bröder, A. (2013). Recognition memory models and binary response ROCs: A comparison by minimum description length. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 693–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2011). The flexibility of models of recognition memory: An analysis by the minimum-description length principle. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 430–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2015). The flexibility of models of recognition memory: The case of confidence ratings. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 67, 8–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauer, K. C., Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2015). Parametric order constraints in multinominal processing tree models: An extension of Knapp & Batchelder (2004). Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 64- - 65, 1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krzyżanowska, K. (2015). Between “If” and “Then”: Towards an empirically informed philosophy of conditionals ( PhD dissertation). Groningen University. Retrieved from http://karolinakrzyzanowska.com/pdfs/krzyzanowska-phd-final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Krzyżanowska, K., Wenmackers, S., & Douven, I. (2014). Rethinking Gibbard's riverboat argument. Studia Logica, 102(4), 771–792. doi:10.1007/s11225-013-9507-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C. J. (2006). Gricean charity: The Gricean turn in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36, 193–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D. (1995). Four tensions concerning mathematical modeling in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 1–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D. (1997). Several unresolved conceptual problems of mathematical psychology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 79–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manktelow, K. (2012). Thinking and reasoning: An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making. Sussex: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCawley, J. (1993). Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (2015). Conditionals and reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., Chaster, N. (2007). Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oberauer, K., Weidenfeld, A., & Fischer, K. (2007). What makes us believe a conditional? The roles of covariation and causality. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), 340–369. doi:10.1080/13546780601035794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, N. S. (2014). Making ranking theory useful for psychology of reasoning ( PhD dissertation). University of Konstanz. Retrieved from http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/29353.
   Google Scholar
• Over, D., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). The probability of conditionals: The psychological evidence. Mind and Language, 18(4), 340–358. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Over, D. E., & Baratgin, J. (2017). The “defective” truth table: Its past, present, and future. In N. Galbraith, E. Lucas, & D. E. Over (Eds.), The thinking mind: A festschrift for ken manktelow (pp. 15–28). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Over, D. E., Hadjichristidis, C., Evans, J. S. B. T., Handley, S. J., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). The probability of causal conditionals. Cognitive Psychology, 54(1), 62–97. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N. (2013). The new psychology of reasoning: A mental probability logical perspective. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3–4), 329–345. doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.838189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, N., & Douven, I. (2014). Formal epistemology and the new paradigm psychology of reasoning. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 5(2), 199–221. doi:10.1007/s13164-013-0165-0
   Google Scholar
• Potts, C. (2015). Presuppositions and implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (2nd ed., pp. 168–202). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Read, T., & Cressie, N. (1988). Goodness-of-fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118, 42–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reips, U. D. (2002). Standards for internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49(4), 243–256. doi:10.1027//1618-3169.49.4.243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rescher, N. (2007). Conditionals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riefer, D. M., & Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95, 318–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouder, J. N., Lu, J., Morey, R. D., Sun, D., & Speckman, P. L. (2008). A hierarchical process dissociation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 370–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8. Retrieved from Methods of Psychological Research Online, http://www.mpronline.de
   Google Scholar
• Schroyens, W. (2010). A meta-analytic review of thinking about what is true, possible, and irrelevant in reasoning from or reasoning about conditional propositions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(6), 897–921. doi:10.1080/09541440902928915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hilton, D., & Naderer, G. (1991). Base rates, representativeness, and the logic of conversation: The contextual relevance of “irrelevant” information. Social Cognition, 9(1), 67–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Self, S. G., & Liang, K. Y. (1987). Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(398), 605–610. doi:10.1080/01621459.1987.10478472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2013). MPTinR: Analysis of multinominal processing tree models with R. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 560–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Højsgaard, S., Fox, J., & Lawrence, M. et al. (2016). Afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 0.13–145. Retrieved from http://cran.rproject.org/package=afex
   Google Scholar
• Singmann, H., Klauer, K. C., & Over, D. (2014). New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 316. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skovgaard-Olsen, N., Singmann, H., & Klauer, K. C. (2016a). The relevance effect and conditionals. Cognition, 150, 26–36. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skovgaard-Olsen, N., Singmann, H., & Klauer, K. C. (2016b). Relevance and reason relations. Cognitive Science, 41(S5), 1202–1215. doi:10.1111/cogs.12462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spohn, W. (2013). A ranking-theoretic approach to conditionals. Cognitive Science, 37, 1074–1106. doi:10.1111/cogs.12057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, E. F., & Wells, G. L. (1988). Is the attitude-attribution paradigm suitable for investigating the dispositional bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(1), 183–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar