Participants in this study completed the CAPSOL Style of Learning Assessment-Form B and the Logical Style Exercise. Compared with the 44 participants exhibiting an “Abduction 1” logical style that accounts for more facts, the 18 participants exhibiting an “Abduction 2” logical style that accounts for newly discovered facts were significantly more likely to exhibit a deductive logical style as well and were significantly more likely to exhibit a visual cognitive style. Discussion of both results focuses on the relationship between Abduction 2 (discovery) and deduction.
Conrath, J. M., & Henderson, H. (2005). CAPSOL Style of Learning Assessment—Form B. Retrieved from www.stylesoflearning.com.
2.
De NeysW. (2006) Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science17(5): 428–433. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x.
FletcherD.SarkarM. (2013) Psychological resilience a review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist18(1): 12–23. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000124.
5.
GalottiK. M.BaronJ.SabiniJ. P. (1986) Individual differences in syllogistic reasoning: Deduction rules or mental models?Journal of Experimental Psychology115(1): 16–25. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.16.
6.
KuhnT. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
KunzendorfR. G.BukerF. (2008–2009) Should visual images be defined as depictive neural patterns, or as conscious sensations constructed from “imageless” visual thoughts?Imagination, Cognition, and Personality28: 5–35. doi:10.2190/IC.28.1.c.
8.
KunzendorfR. G.DwyerN.ForanM.PaganA.GiuseppeA.MilliganB. (2013–2014) Heterarchical versus hierarchical modes of imageless thinking. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality33: 405–422. doi:10.2190/IC.33.4.f.
9.
KunzendorfR. G.LymanS. S.SousaB.HillyE. (2012–2013) “Imageless” spatial and temporal rules can be tested and refined by constructing vivid visual and auditory images. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality32: 115–150. doi:10.2190/IC.32.2.c.
10.
KunzendorfR. G.ReynoldsK. (2004–2005) On the cognitive function of visual images and the development of individual differences. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality24: 245–257. doi:10.2190/A0NL-CEMA-JG0Q-MEEV.
11.
MehlhornK.TaatgenN. A.LebiereC.KremsJ. F. (2011) Memory activation and the availability of explanations in sequential diagnostic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition37(6): 1391–1411. doi:10.1037/a0023920.
12.
NewsteadS. E.HandleyS. J.HarleyC.WrightH.FarrellyD. (2004) Individual differences in deductive reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology57A(1): 33–60. doi:10.1080/02724980343000116.
13.
NovickL. R. (2006) Understanding spatial diagram structure: An analysis of hierarchies, matrices, and networks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology59: 1826–1856. doi:10.1080/17470210500298997.
14.
NovickL. R.HurleyS. M. (2001) To matrix, network, or hierarchy: That is the question. Cognitive Psychology42: 158–216. doi:10.1006/cogp.2000.0746.
15.
PeirceC. S. (1877) The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly12: 1–15. .
16.
PeirceC. S. (1878) Illustrations of the logic of science. Popular Science Monthly13: 470–482.
17.
PiagetJ. (1970) Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.), New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
PopperK. R. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery (K. R. Popper, Trans.), New York, NY: Basic Books(Original work published 1934).
19.
SchwartzS. H. (1971) Modes of representation and problem solving: Well evolved is half solved. Journal of Experimental Psychology91: 347–350. doi:10.1037/h0031856.
20.
SchwartzS. H.FattalehD. L. (1972) Representation in deductive problem solving: The matrix. Journal of Experimental Psychology95: 343–348. doi:10.1037h0033669.
21.
SmithR. (1989) Aristotle: Prior analytics, translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
22.
StuppleE. J. N.BallL. J.EvansJ. B. T.Kamal-SmithE. (2011) When logic and belief collide: Individual differences in reasoning times support a selective processing model. Journal of Cognitive Psychology23(8): 931–941. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.589381.
