A Boolean generalization of the information-gain model can eliminate specific reasoning errors

Chris Thornton

Journal of Mathematical Psychology2025https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2025.102918article
AJG 3
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

In the Wason selection task, subjects show a tendency towards counter-logical behaviour. Evidence gained from this experiment raises questions about the role that deductive logic plays in human reasoning. A prominent explanation of the effect uses an information-gain model. Rather than reasoning deductively, it is argued that subjects seek to reduce uncertainty. The bias that is observed is seen to stem from maximizing information gain in this adaptively rational way. This theoretical article shows that a Boolean generalization of the information-gain model is potentially considered the normative foundation of reasoning, in which case several inferences traditionally considered errors are found to be valid. The article examines how this affects inferences involving both over-extension of logical implication and overestimation of conjunctive probability. • Proposes a hybrid, logic/probability calculus. • Derives this as a generalization of the pre-existing information-gain model. • Connects reasoning to information acquisition. • Shows that several inferences traditionally classified as errors change their status under this hybrid form of normativity.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2025.102918

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{chris2025,
  title        = {{A Boolean generalization of the information-gain model can eliminate specific reasoning errors}},
  author       = {Chris Thornton},
  journal      = {Journal of Mathematical Psychology},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2025.102918},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

A Boolean generalization of the information-gain model can eliminate specific reasoning errors

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.