Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Villkorssatser för symptom och sjukdom: En undersökning i logiskt tänkande, affirming the consequent och need for cognition

Iburg, Nathalie LU and Iburg, Emilia LU (2025) PSYK12 20251
Department of Psychology
Abstract (Swedish)
Studiens syfte var att undersöka hur individer tolkar villkorssatser för symptom och sjukdom, framförallt när dessa beskrivs som “Om sjukdom, så symptom”, och sekundärt vid det omvända: “Om symptom så sjukdom”. Även sambandet mellan need for cognition och korrektheten i dessa tolkningar undersöktes. En kvantitativ studie genomfördes, där 50 deltagare svarade på en enkät. Utifrån båda villkorsformerna beskrevs symptom och sjukdomsbilder, och på tillhörande frågor fick deltagarna besvara huruvida en person kunde anses ha sjukdomen (svarsalternativ “ja”, “nej”, “oklart”), vid olika symptom-bilder. Den andra delen av enkäten undersökte deltagarnas need for cognition.
Resultatet visade att deltagarna, vid formen “Om sjukdom, så symptom”... (More)
Studiens syfte var att undersöka hur individer tolkar villkorssatser för symptom och sjukdom, framförallt när dessa beskrivs som “Om sjukdom, så symptom”, och sekundärt vid det omvända: “Om symptom så sjukdom”. Även sambandet mellan need for cognition och korrektheten i dessa tolkningar undersöktes. En kvantitativ studie genomfördes, där 50 deltagare svarade på en enkät. Utifrån båda villkorsformerna beskrevs symptom och sjukdomsbilder, och på tillhörande frågor fick deltagarna besvara huruvida en person kunde anses ha sjukdomen (svarsalternativ “ja”, “nej”, “oklart”), vid olika symptom-bilder. Den andra delen av enkäten undersökte deltagarnas need for cognition.
Resultatet visade att deltagarna, vid formen “Om sjukdom, så symptom” tenderar att göra ja-fel (svara “ja” när korrekt svar är “oklart”), vilket går i linje med forskning kring det logiska feltänket affirming the consequent. Deltagarna tenderade även att undvika att göra nej-fel (svara “nej” när korrekt svar är “oklart”). Vid “Om symptom, så sjukdom” visar resultatet att deltagarna gör fler antal korrekta svar än om de svarat slumpmässigt. Studien fann inget samband mellan need for cognition och något sätt att svara.
Slutsatsen är att människor har en tendens att misstolka vissa villkorssatser, vilket kan vara av vikt för framtida forskning om hur sjukdomsinformation kan formuleras. (Less)
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate how individuals interpret conditional statements about symptoms and disease, primarily when these are phrased as “If disease, then symptoms”, secondarily also in the reversed form: “If symptoms, then disease”. Apart from this was the correlation between need for cognition and the accuracy of these interpretations, also examined. A quantitative study was conducted, in which 50 participants responded to a
questionnaire. Based upon both conditional forms, symptom and disease descriptions were formulated, and participants answered questions about whether a person could be considered to have the disease (“yes”, “no” or “unclear”) based on various symptom scenarios. The second part of the questionnaire... (More)
The aim of this study was to investigate how individuals interpret conditional statements about symptoms and disease, primarily when these are phrased as “If disease, then symptoms”, secondarily also in the reversed form: “If symptoms, then disease”. Apart from this was the correlation between need for cognition and the accuracy of these interpretations, also examined. A quantitative study was conducted, in which 50 participants responded to a
questionnaire. Based upon both conditional forms, symptom and disease descriptions were formulated, and participants answered questions about whether a person could be considered to have the disease (“yes”, “no” or “unclear”) based on various symptom scenarios. The second part of the questionnaire investigated participants ́ need for cognition.
The results showed that in the “If disease, then symptom” condition, participants tended to make yes-errors (responded “yes” when the correct answer was “unclear”), which aligns with research on the logical fallacy affirming the consequent. The participants also tended to avoid making no-errors (responding “no” when the correct answer was “unclear”). In the “If symptoms, then illness” condition, the results showed that participants gave more correct answers than would be expected by chance. The study found no relationship between need for cognition and any specific response pattern.
In conclusion, individuals tend to misinterpret some conditional statements, which may be relevant for future research on how health information could be presented. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Iburg, Nathalie LU and Iburg, Emilia LU
supervisor
organization
course
PSYK12 20251
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Affirming the consequent, need for cognition, logiskt resonemang, logiskt tänkande, heuristik, beslutsfattande, sjukdom-och symptombild, materiell implikation
language
Swedish
id
9198745
date added to LUP
2025-06-16 12:27:28
date last changed
2025-06-16 12:27:28
@misc{9198745,
  abstract     = {{The aim of this study was to investigate how individuals interpret conditional statements about symptoms and disease, primarily when these are phrased as “If disease, then symptoms”, secondarily also in the reversed form: “If symptoms, then disease”. Apart from this was the correlation between need for cognition and the accuracy of these interpretations, also examined. A quantitative study was conducted, in which 50 participants responded to a
questionnaire. Based upon both conditional forms, symptom and disease descriptions were formulated, and participants answered questions about whether a person could be considered to have the disease (“yes”, “no” or “unclear”) based on various symptom scenarios. The second part of the questionnaire investigated participants ́ need for cognition. 
The results showed that in the “If disease, then symptom” condition, participants tended to make yes-errors (responded “yes” when the correct answer was “unclear”), which aligns with research on the logical fallacy affirming the consequent. The participants also tended to avoid making no-errors (responding “no” when the correct answer was “unclear”). In the “If symptoms, then illness” condition, the results showed that participants gave more correct answers than would be expected by chance. The study found no relationship between need for cognition and any specific response pattern.
In conclusion, individuals tend to misinterpret some conditional statements, which may be relevant for future research on how health information could be presented.}},
  author       = {{Iburg, Nathalie and Iburg, Emilia}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Villkorssatser för symptom och sjukdom: En undersökning i logiskt tänkande, affirming the consequent och need for cognition}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}