An aptitude × strategy interaction in linear syllogistic reasoning.

Abstract

Abstract : The major goal of the present study was to demonstrate an aptitude-strategy interaction in linear syllogistic reasoning. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the efficiency of each of four alternative strategies for solving linear syllogisms--problems such as 'John is taller than Bill; Bill is taller than Pete; who is tallest.'--would depend upon subjects' patterns of verbal and spatial abilities. This hypothesis was confirmed. The research also had three subsidiary goals. The first was to determine whether it is possible to train subjects to use various classes of strategies for solving linear syllogisms. It was found that such training is possible. The second goal was to determine whether certain strategies for solving linear syllogisms might be more efficient on the average than others. It was found that one strategy, used spontaneously by only a small minority of subjects but rather easily trainable, is more efficient than alternative strategies that subjects seem to use. The third goal was to provide a series of converging operations for testing the validity of one particular account of linear-syllogistic reasoning--a spatial-linguistic mixture model--for subjects receiving no explicit instruction in the solution of linear syllogisms. The validity of this model for the untrained subjects was upheld. It was concluded that componential analysis, a series of concpetual and methodological techniques for investigating intelligent performance, can provide a useful means for studying interactions between aptitudes and experimental treatments. (Author)