@article{OberauerHornigWeidenfeldetal.2005,
  author    = {Oberauer, Klaus and Hornig, R. and Weidenfeld, Andrea and Wilhelm, Oliver},
  title     = {Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning : II. Premise integration and conclusion evaluation},
  issn      = {0272-4987},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {Previous research (Oberauer \& Wilhelm, 2000) has shown an inherent directionality between the two terms linked in premises of typical deductive reasoning tasks. With three experiments we investigated the effect of inherent directionality on the time to integrate two premises and for the derivation of a conclusion. We varied figure (i.e., order of terms in the premises) and direction of inference (i.e., order of terms in the conclusion) in deduction tasks from various domains (propositional reasoning, syllogisms, spatial, temporal, and linear order reasoning). Effects of figure on premise reading times varied with the directionality of the relations. Effects of direction of inference reflected the same directionality for a subset of relations. We propose that two factors are jointly responsible for a large part of observed directionality effects in premise integration: the inherent directionality of relational statements and a general advantage for a given-new order of terms in the second premise. Difficulty of deriving a conclusion is affected by the directionality or relations if and only if the relation is semantically asymmetric, so that the directionality must be preserved in the integrated mental model},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HornigOberauerWeidenfeld2005,
  author    = {Hornig, R. and Oberauer, Klaus and Weidenfeld, Andrea},
  title     = {Two principles of premise integration in spatial reasoning},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {We propose two principles that facilitate integration of two relational premises in spatial reasoning. Integration is easier if the anaphor in the second premise, P2, bears the role of the relatum (relatum = given). Moreover, integration is easier if, in P2, the anaphor is mentioned before the new element (given-new). In premises with canonical word order (grammatical subjects mentioned first), these principles always conflict with one another. In topicalized statements mentioning the prepositional phrase first, the two principles work in tandem. By varying word order, we tested the two principles by measuring P2 comprehension times. Comprehension times indicated that integration was easiest when P2 obeyed both principles and most difficult when both principles were violated. Canonical premises were of intermediate difficulty. This pattern emerged regardless of whether the anaphor was a definite description or a pronoun},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeidenfeldOberauerHornig2005,
  author    = {Weidenfeld, Andrea and Oberauer, Klaus and Hornig, R},
  title     = {Causal and noncausal conditionals : an integrated model of interpretation and reasoning},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {We present an integrated model for the understanding of and the reasoning from conditional statements. Central assumptions from several approaches are integrated into a causal path model. According to the model, the cognitive availability of exceptions to a conditional reduces the subjective conditional probability of the consequent, given the antecedent. This conditional probability determines people's degree of belief in the conditional, which in turn affects their willingness to accept logically valid inferences. In addition to this indirect pathway, the model contains a direct pathway: Availability of exceptional situations directly reduces the endorsement of valid inferences. We tested the integrated model with three experiments using conditional statements embedded in pseudonaturalistic cover stories. An explicitly mentioned causal link between antecedent and consequent was either present (causal conditionals) or absent (arbitrary conditionals). The model was supported for the causal but not for the arbitrary conditional statements},
  language  = {en}
}