Download
di na g ncz joanna styczynska and alan langus n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
FINAL PROJECT PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
FINAL PROJECT

FINAL PROJECT

125 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

FINAL PROJECT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Diána Göncz, Joanna Styczynska and Alan Langus FINAL PROJECT

  2. 1. METHODS 1.1 STIMULUS MATERIALS: Message design reformulated: • If Ania has to write an email she will use her computer. • Additional premise: If Ania has time she will use her computer. • Alternative premise: If Ania has to type an essay she will use her computer.

  3. 1. METHODS 1.2 FORMAT • No explicitly formulated answer set • Why? • to avoid possible E-biases • no pressure to find the only one good solution • natural reasoning situation Drawback: difficulty in finding a formal model to the reasoning pattern

  4. 1. METHODS 1.3 SUBJECTS • 8 subjects: 1. Female, 25, Student (Hungarian) 2. Female, 22, Student (Hungarian) 3. Male, 50, Higher education (Polish) 4. Male, 24, Student (German) 5. Female 23, Student (Polish) 6. Female, 55, Higher education (Estonian)

  5. Participant NR.1 • -as it could be expected, not only one reasoning model was applied • 1. MT – Additional premise • Suppression 1.A ab  B 2. C ab B 3.  B 4. C→ ab 5. A • MP alternative premise • Partial suppression • 1.A ab  B • 2 C ab B • 3.B • 4. A C

  6. Modus Ponens • 2. MP- Additional premise: • No suppression • 1. A ab B • 2. C  abB • 3. A • 4. B • 5. B C • MP-Alternative premise • No suppression. • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3.A • 4.B

  7. Affirming the Consequent • AC - Additional premise: • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3.B • 4.A  C • AC - Alternative premise: • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3. B • 4.A  C

  8. Denying the Antecedent • DA - Additional premise: • No suppression • 1.A ab  B • 2.C ab B • 3.A • 4. B • DA - Alternative premise: • Suppression • 1.A ab  B • 2.C ab B • 3.A • 4.B • 5.C  B

  9. Participant NR.2 • 1.MT - Additional premise • Suppression • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3. B • 4. C  ab • 2. MT – Alternative premise • Partial suppression • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3. B • 4. A C

  10. Modus Ponens • 3. MP – Additional premise • No suppression • 1. A ab B • 2. C  abB • 3. A • 4. B • 4. MP –Alternative premise • No suppression • 1.A ab  B • 2. C  abB • 3. A • 4.B

  11. Affirming the Consequent • 5. AC – Additional premise • 1.A ab  B • 2.C ab B • 3.B • 4.A  C • 6. AC –Alternative premise • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3. B • 4.A  C

  12. Denying the Antecedent • 7. DA – Additional premise: • inconclusive • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3. A • 4. B B • 8. DA - Additional premise: • Inconclusive • 1.A ab  B • 2. C ab B • 3. A • 4.B B

  13. Participant NR.3 • No suppression of MP • Additional premise: “I think that she will use a computer. Maybe not hers, but some computer. I mean she has to write an email and... so.. she will find the time to do so, right? So, yes... she will use her computer.” • Alternative premise: “She will use her computer. It doesn't matter if she has to write an essay, because she has to write an email and that is enough for her to use the computer. • MT • Additional: “I think that she either does not have to write an email or she doesn't have the time to do so. [...] actually... she probably just doesn't have the time to do so, because she needs the time to be able to write the email, right?” • Alternative: “It's either that she does not have an email or an essay to type. Or none of this is happening. I don't know. You cannot conclude anything from it.”

  14. Participant NR.3 ...continued • AC • Additional: “I think that the only thing we can say is that she has time. Well, if she does not have time, she can't be using the computer. So if she is, she must have the time to do so, but maybe she doesn't write the email. • Alternative: “[...] It could be because of the email or because of the essay, but also because of something else. So I can't conclude anything. [...]” • DA • Additional: “[...] She might still have time to use her computer or some other purpose, so she could use the computer, but not necessarily [...].” • Alternative: “She might still have an essay to write or something else to do with the computer, so again I think it's inconclusive.”

  15. Participant NR.4 • No suppression of MP • Additional premise:“She will use the computer because that is the first rule, but I don't know if she has time to do so. [...] she can write a quick email or be in a hurry and still use it.” • Alternative premise: “Well... she will use the computer, I guess. But I don't know whether she has an essay to type.” • MT • Additional: “I don't know if she had to write an email or if she had no time. We only know what the consequence was, but we do not know what caused it.” • Alternative: “It's the same case again. It's inconclusive.”

  16. Participant NR.4...continued • AC • Additional: “[...] we don't know if she had to write an email or maybe had some other reason to [use the computer]. And I don't think that she had to have the time, because it could have been brief or maybe she was in a hurry.” • Alternative: “We cannot conclude anything. She may be doing different things with the computer, not only the two.” • DA • Additional: “[...] she can still use the computer for other reasons [...].” • Alternative: “[...] Not enough information, she can still use the computer for other reasons.”

  17. Participant NR.5 and 6 • Assume closed world conditions on all examples • Do not differentiate between additional and alternative premises (disjunctive conditions for using the computer; exception participant 5) • As a result both suppress MT ex: Subject 6: She doesn’t have an email to write or she doesn’t have the time to use the computer / She has no email nor an essay to write because she will not use her computer.

  18. Participant NR.5 and 6 continued • Participant 5 suppresses MP in the additional premise condition whereas doesn’t in the alternative premise condition: Ex: MP additional premise: She will use the computer if she has time, because she cannot write the email if she doesn’t have the time / MP alternative premise : it doesn’t matter if she has an essay to write because she will use the computer to write the email. • Participant 6 does not suppress MP Ex: MP additional premise : If she has to write an email she will write an email. (closed world?) / MP alternative premise : if she has the email to write she will use the computer even when she doesn’t have an essay to write. Therefore she will use the computer.

  19. Participant NR.5 and 6 continued • AC additional premise / AC alternative premise problematic because of disjunctive conditions: Ex: Subject 6: AC additional premise : She might use the computer for writing the email or if she has time to use it for what ever she uses it for. There is not enough evidence to decide which is the case. / AC alternative premise : I cannot decide what she is going to use the computer for. She might use it for writing the email or the essay. I don’t know – I would need some more information.

  20. Participant NR. 5 and 6 continued • Unable to solve DA additional premise / DA alternative premise Ex: Subject 5: DA additional premise : I don’t know what to conclude, she might use the computer if she has time, but she won’t if she doesn’t have time. DA alternative premise : It is like the previous one really, she might use the computer if she has an essay to write but as we don’t know that, she might not use it after all. I don’t see the difference between the two questions.

  21. Conclusions • Difficulty in fitting models to individuals, because they change their strategies (e.g. using CWR at times only) • Problem with open answers: no E-bias, no unnatural situation with forced choice, but mixed answers and difficulty in fitting models as results • Problem with asking for motivation without influencing/distorting the subject's reasoning