Abstract
Given that Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) as an intelligence test with robust psychometric properties is considered to be a good measure of reasoning ability component of general intelligence, particularly its fluid factor, one would expect that uncovering the determinants of APM performance, especially reasoning patterns, could significantly contribute to understanding of intelligence. Our aim in this study was to identify types of reasoning processes involved in solving Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices test. To this end we carried out two studies: one involving eliciting verbal protocols in the form of Socratic tutorial dialogues and one involving controlling eye-fixation patterns. Results suggest that hypotheses generation and testing, involved in solving APM tasks, essentially amounts to abductive reasoning.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1974). Pragmatic logic (O. Wojtasiewicz, trans.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Blair, C. (2010). Fluid cognitive abilities and general intelligence. In R. M. Lerner, W. F. Overton, A. M. Freund & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development. Wiley.
Bors, D., & Stokes, T. (1998). Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices: Norms for first-year university students and the development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3), 382–398.
Carpenter, P., Just, M., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: a theoretical account of the processing in the raven progressive matrices test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431.
Chan, C. S. (2014). Style and creativity in design (Vol. 17). Berlin: Springer.
DeShon, R., Chan, D., & Weissbein, D. (1995). Verbal overshadowing effects on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices: Evidence for multidimensional performance determinants. Intelligence, 21(2), 135–155.
Forbus, K., Lovett, A., & Usher, J. (2010). A structure-mapping model of Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Proceedings of CogSci, 10, 2761–2766.
Gabbay, D., & Woods, J. (2005). The practical turn in logic. In G. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2nd Ed., pp. 15–122). Berlin: Springer.
Gittler, G., & Wuerfeltest D. (1990). Ein rasch-skalierter test zur messung des raeumlichen vorstellungsvermoegens. Theoretische grundlagen und manual. Beltz Test, Weinheim.
Hayes, J. (1978). Cognitive psychology: Thinking and creating. Belmont: Dorsey.
Kunda, M., McGreggor, K., & Goel, A. (2010). Taking a look (literally!) at the raven’s intelligence test: Two visual solution strategies. In Proceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland.
Kunda, M., McGreggor, K., & Goel, A. (2012). Reasoning on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices test with iconic visual representations. In 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1828–1833).
Kunda, M., McGreggor, K., & Goel, A. (2013). A computational model for solving problems from the raven’s progressive matrices intelligence test using iconic visual representations. Cognitive Systems Research, 22, 47–66.
Lane, S., & Schooler, J. (2004). Skimming the surface verbal overshadowing of analogical retrieval. Psychological Science, 15(11), 715–719.
Magnani, L. (2009). Abductive cognition: The epistemological and eco-cognitive dimensions of hypothetical reasoning (Vol. 3). Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.
Marr, D., & Vision, A. (1982). A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. WH San Francisco: Freeman and Company.
Orzechowski, J., Nęcka, E., & Szymura, B. (2008). Psychologia poznawcza. Wydawnictwo Szkoly Wyższej Psychologii Spolecznej “Academica”.
Preckel, F., & Thiemann, H. (2003). Online-versus paper-pencil version of a high potential intelligence test. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 62(2), 131.
Rasmussen, D., & Eliasmith, Ch. (2011). A neural model of rule generation in inductive reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(1), 140–153.
Raven, J., Raven, J., & Court, J. (2003a). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales (Section 1: General overview). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Raven, J., Raven, J., & Court, J. (2003b). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales (Section 4: Advanced progressive matrices). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Reitman, W. (1965). Cognition and thought: An information processing approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ricco, R., & Overton, W. (2011). Dual systems competence–procedural processing: A relational developmental systems approach to reasoning. Developmental Review, 31(2), 119–150.
Roberts, M., Meo, M., & Marucci, F. (2007). Element salience as a predictor of item difficulty for Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Intelligence, 35(4), 359–368.
Schurz, G. (2008). Patterns of abduction. Synthese, 164(2), 201–234.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201.
Stanovich, K. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Park Drive: Psychology Press.
Stenning, K., & Van Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Thagard, P. (2000). How scientists explain disease. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thagard, P., & Verbeurgt, K. (1998). Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 22(1), 1–24.
Urbański, M. (2009). Rozumowania abdukcyjne. Modele i procedury. Adam Mickiewicz University Press, Poznań.
Urbański, M., Paluszkiewicz, K. & Urbańska, J. (2013). Deductive reasoning and learning: A cross-curricular study. Research report. Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University.
Urbański, M. & Żyluk, N. (2016). Sets of situations, topics, and question relevance. Research report. Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University.
Urbański, M., Żyluk, N., Paluszkiewicz, K., Urbańska, J. (2016). A formal model of erotetic reasoning in solving somewhat ill-defined problems. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation. London: College Publications (in print).
Verguts, T., & De Boeck, P. (2002). The induction of solution rules in Raven’s Progressive Matrices test. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 521–547.
Vigneau, F., & Bors, D. (2008). The quest for item types based on information processing: An analysis of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices, with a consideration of gender differences. Intelligence, 36(6), 702–710.
Wiley, J., Loesche, P., & Hasselhorn, M. (2015). How knowing the rules affects solving the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices test. Intelligence, 48, 58–75.
Williams, J., & McCord, D. (2006). Equivalence of standard and computerized versions of the Raven Progressive Matrices test. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 791–800.
Wiśniewski, A. (2013). Questions, inferences, and scenarios. London: College Publications.
Acknowledgments
Research reported in this paper were supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (DEC-2013/10/E/HS1/00172).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kisielewska, M., Urbański, M., Paluszkiewicz, K. (2016). Abduction in One Intelligence Test. Types of Reasoning Involved in Solving Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. In: Magnani, L., Casadio, C. (eds) Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38983-7_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38983-7_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38982-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38983-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)