Transitive Inferences From Narrative Relations

Inferences drawn while reading artificial set inclusion passages tend to be different than those made when reasoning with categorical syllogisms and linear orderings even though all three describe transitive relations. The present study tests the hypothesis that this disparity results from reasoners' perception of the commonality among category terms. In three experiments, students were given artificial set inclusion paragraphs that either contained convergent category terms that posses a common superordinate, similar to what is found in syllogistic reasoning (e.g., Revlin, Ammerman, Petersen, & Leirere, 1978 ), or they were given divergent category terms that do not possess a common superordinate (similar to Griggs, 1976a ). The perceived commonality among the category terms affected the interpretations of the narrative relations and determined the pattern of inferences that students were willing to draw.