Analytical Thinkers Adopt a Skeptical Stance Toward Invited Inferences in Conditional Reasoning|分析性思维数据集|条件推理数据集

As an individual difference variable, analytical thinking has been linked to logical responding on reasoning tasks that feature relatively more complex, yet ubiquitous, inferences. The present study explores whether a predisposition to use analytical thinking is also positively associated with the generation of counterexamples to conditional statements and with a greater skepticism regarding invalid (AC and DA), and to a lesser extent, valid (MP and MT), conditional arguments. We presented college students with a counterexample generation task on which participants generated both disablers (exceptions) and alternative antecedents for each of a series of conditional statements. Participants also completed a conditional reasoning (CR) task employing open-ended instructions that allowed participants to choose what criteria (e.g., believability, logical validity) to use in deciding whether the conclusion followed from the premises. Individual differences in analytical thinking were measured by the Actively Open-minded Thinking Scale (AOT) and the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). Results indicated that the AOT and CRT were positively related to the generation of both disablers and alternative antecedents. On the CR task, both measures of analytical thinking predicted the rejection of invalid (AC and DA) arguments. In addition, we found that the generation of counterexamples partially mediated the relation between analytical thinking and the rejection of AC arguments. The AOT was moderately related to the rejection of valid arguments, but the relation between analytical thinking and argument rejection was more robust for invalid arguments than for valid arguments.