Reasoning with Negations: The Australian Plan, Negation-as-Failure, and Card Selection Tasks

Abstract Two kinds of formal semantics for negation can help us understand puzzles in the psychology of reasoning: the Australian Plan semantics , which generalises the account of negation found in frame semantics for intuitionistic logic, relevant and substructural logics; and negation-as-failure , found in logic programming and default logic. We provide a framework where the two kinds of negation coexist, mapping them to the celebrated distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking. We use the framework to target the phenomenon of Matching Bias : specifically, to explain why reasoners fare differently in card selection tasks, depending on whether the target property is phrased positively or negatively.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Published
2026-10-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-026-00847-7
Primary Topic
Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reasoning with Negations: The Australian Plan, Negation-as-Failure, and Card Selection Tasks

Greg Restall, Francesco Berto
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
article

Reasoning with Negations: The Australian Plan, Negation-as-Failure, and Card Selection Tasks

Greg Restall, Francesco Berto
article en

Abstract

Abstract Two kinds of formal semantics for negation can help us understand puzzles in the psychology of reasoning: the Australian Plan semantics , which generalises the account of negation found in frame semantics for intuitionistic logic, relevant and substructural logics; and negation-as-failure , found in logic programming and default logic. We provide a framework where the two kinds of negation coexist, mapping them to the celebrated distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking. We use the framework to target the phenomenon of Matching Bias : specifically, to explain why reasoners fare differently in card selection tasks, depending on whether the target property is phrased positively or negatively.

Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Andrews University (US), University of St Andrews (GB)
Leverhulme Trust, University of Stirling
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.