Inhibitory mechanism of the matching heuristic in syllogistic reasoning.

A number of heuristic-based hypotheses have been proposed to explain how people solve syllogisms with automatic processes. In particular, the matching heuristic employs the congruency of the quantifiers in a syllogism—by matching the quantifier of the conclusion with those of the two premises. When the heuristic leads to an invalid conclusion, successful solving of these conflict problems requires the inhibition of automatic heuristic processing. Accordingly, if the automatic processing were based on processing the set of quantifiers, no semantic contents would be inhibited. The mental model theory, however, suggests that people reason using mental models, which always involves semantic processing. Therefore, whatever inhibition occurs in the processing implies the inhibition of the semantic contents. We manipulated the validity of the syllogism and the congruency of the quantifier of its conclusion with those of the two premises according to the matching heuristic. A subsequent lexical decision task (LDT) with related words in the conclusion was used to test any inhibition of the semantic contents after each syllogistic evaluation trial. In the LDT, the facilitation effect of semantic priming diminished after correctly solved conflict syllogisms (match-invalid or mismatch-valid), but was intact after no-conflict syllogisms. The results suggest the involvement of an inhibitory mechanism of semantic contents in syllogistic reasoning when there is a conflict between the output of the syntactic heuristic and actual validity. Our results do not support a uniquely syntactic process of syllogistic reasoning but fit with the predictions based on mental model theory.