Theories of Human Reasoning: The Fragmented State of the Art

Abstract

The current state of theory in the psychology of reasoning is examined. It is argued that theories have become highly fragmented partly because different authors have focused their explanations on different issues and on different experimental paradigms. Three basic questions are identified as arising from the numerous experimental findings in this area: (1) what mechanism is responsible for logical competence, (2) what causes errors and biases in reasoning, and (3) why is reasoning performance so dependent upon problem content and context? The discussion of contemporary attempts to answer these questions reveals that most theories have been implicitly focused on one or another and that none provide a convincing approach to all three. Several issues underlying the various theoretical disagreements are then identified and discussed. The article ends with some recommendations for progress towards a more integrated theory of human reasoning.