Intuitive logic revisited: new data and a Bayesian mixed model meta-analysis.

Abstract

Recent research on syllogistic reasoning suggests that the logical status (valid vs. invalid) of even difficult syllogisms can be intuitively detected via differences in conceptual fluency between logically valid and invalid syllogisms when participants are asked to rate how much they like a conclusion following from a syllogism (Morsanyi & Handley, 2012). These claims of an intuitive logic are at odds with most theories on syllogistic reasoning which posit that detecting the logical status of difficult syllogisms requires effortful and deliberate cognitive processes. We present new data replicating the effects reported by Morsanyi and Handley, but show that this effect is eliminated when controlling for a possible confound in terms of conclusion content. Additionally, we reanalyze three studies (n = 287) without this confound with a Bayesian mixed model meta-analysis (i.e., controlling for participant and item effects) which provides evidence for the null-hypothesis and against Morsanyi and Handley's claim.