Drawing conclusions about an object or phenomenon based on its similarities to something else
Published on January 12, 2022 by Pritha Bhandari. Revised on October 10, 2022. Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually
contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you go from general information to specific conclusions. Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning. Note: Inductive reasoning is often confused with
deductive reasoning. However, in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions. Inductive reasoning is a logical approach to making inferences, or conclusions. People often use inductive reasoning informally in everyday situations. You may have come across inductive logic examples that come in a set of three statements. These start with one specific observation, add a general pattern, and end with a conclusion. Examples: Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning in researchIn inductive research, you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad view of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories. Example: Inductive reasoning in researchYou conduct exploratory research on whether pet behaviors have changed due to work-from-home measures for their owners.You distribute a survey to pet owners. You ask about the type of animal they have and any behavioral changes they’ve noticed in their pets since they started working from home. These data make up your observations. To analyze your data, you create a procedure to categorize the survey responses so you can pick up on repeated themes. You notice a pattern: most pets became more needy and clingy or agitated and aggressive. Based on your findings, you conclude that almost all pets went through some behavioral changes due to changes in their owners’ work locations. This is a generalization that you can build on to test further research questions. Inductive reasoning is commonly linked to qualitative research, but both quantitative and qualitative research use a mix of different types of reasoning. Receive feedback on language, structure and formattingProfessional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example Types of inductive reasoningThere are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally, so we’ll cover just a few in this article:
Inductive reasoning generalizations can vary from weak to strong, depending on the number and quality of observations and arguments used. Inductive generalizationInductive generalizations use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from. Inductive generalizations are also called induction by enumeration. Example: Inductive generalization
Inductive generalizations are evaluated using several criteria:
Statistical generalizationStatistical generalizations use specific numbers to make statements about populations, while non-statistical generalizations aren’t as specific. These generalizations are a subtype of inductive generalizations, and they’re also called statistical syllogisms. Here’s an example of a statistical generalization contrasted with a non-statistical generalization. Example: Statistical vs. non-statistical generalization
Causal reasoningCausal reasoning means making cause-and-effect links between different things. A causal reasoning statement often follows a standard setup:
Good causal inferences meet a couple of criteria:
Sign reasoningSign reasoning involves making correlational connections between different things. Using inductive reasoning, you infer a purely correlational relationship where nothing causes the other thing to occur. Instead, one event may act as a “sign” that another event will occur or is currently occurring. Example: Sign reasoning
It’s best to be careful when making correlational links between variables. Build your argument on strong evidence, and eliminate any confounding variables, or you may be on shaky ground. Analogical reasoningAnalogical reasoning means drawing conclusions about something based on its similarities to another thing. You first link two things together and then conclude that some attribute of one thing must also hold true for the other thing. Analogical reasoning can be literal (closely similar) or figurative (abstract), but you’ll have a much stronger case when you use a literal comparison. Analogical reasoning is also called comparison reasoning. Example: Analogical reasoning
Inductive vs. deductive reasoningInductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down. In deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions. You start with a theory, and you might develop a hypothesis that you test empirically. You collect data from many observations and use a statistical test to come to a conclusion about your hypothesis. Inductive research is usually exploratory in nature, because your generalizations help you develop theories. In contrast, deductive research is generally confirmatory. Sometimes, both inductive and deductive approaches are combined within a single research study. Example: Combining inductive and deductive reasoningYou start a research project on ways to improve office environments.Inductive reasoning approach You begin by using qualitative methods to explore the research topic, taking an inductive reasoning approach. You collect observations by interviewing workers on the subject and analyze the data to spot any patterns. Then, you develop a theory to test in a follow-up study. Deductive reasoning approach You start with the general idea that office lighting can affect quality of life for workers. You believe that significant natural lighting can improve office environments for workers. In a follow-up experiment, you test the hypothesis using a deductive research approach. Frequently asked questions about inductive reasoningWhat is inductive reasoning? Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions. Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning. What are some types of inductive reasoning? There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally. Here are a few common types:
Sources in this articleWe strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below. This Scribbr article
Is this article helpful?You have already voted. Thanks :-) Your vote is saved :-) Processing your vote... Are a form of inductive reasoning that draws conclusions based on recurring patterns or repeated observations?Generalization. Generalization is a form of inductive reasoning that draws conclusions based on recurring patterns or repeated observations.
What skill is used when you form conclusions or opinions based on evidence?Inductive reasoning is a method of logical thinking that combines observations with experiential information to reach a conclusion. When you can look at a specific set of data and form general conclusions based on existing knowledge from past experiences, you are using inductive reasoning.
What is deductive statement?Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It's often contrasted with inductive reasoning, where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions. Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic or top-down reasoning.
What is a type of reasoning in which examples or specific instances are used to supply strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion?Inductive reasoning (also called “induction”) is probably the form of reasoning we use on a more regular basis. Induction is sometimes referred to as “reasoning from example or specific instance,” and indeed, that is a good description. It could also be referred to as “bottom-up” thinking.
|