Everyday reasoning with inducements and advice

Abstract

In two experiments, we investigated how people interpret and reason with realistic conditionals in the form of inducements (i.e., promises and threats) and advice (i.e., tips and warnings). We found that inducements and advice differed with respect to the degree to which the speaker was perceived to have (a) control over the consequent, (b) a stake in the outcome, and (c) an obligation to ensure that the outcome occurs. Inducements and advice also differed with respect to perceived sufficiency and necessity, as well as the degree to which these statements were perceived to be effective in changing the behaviour described in the antecedent of the conditional. Multiple regression analyses indicated that perceived control over the consequent, necessity, and sufficiency emerged as the best predictors of (a) the degree to which statements were perceived to be effective in changing the behaviour of the addressee, and (b) inference patterns on a conditional arguments task.Conditional reasoning is a common form of reasoning that entails drawing inferences about statements of the form if p then q, where p and q refer to the antecedent and consequent terms, respectively. Most of what we know about conditional reasoning comes from a small number of deductive reasoning tasks. In these tasks, participants are asked to assume the truth of the premises and reason only on the basis of the information explicitly provided. However, there is a growing consensus that this deductive paradigm is too restrictive to fully capture the complexities of everyday reasoning (see Evans, 2002). Instead, a complete understanding of people's reasoning processes will require a multi-dimensional approach that goes beyond the limitations imposed by the deductive paradigm (Beller, 2002).

The effect of emotion on interpretation and logic in a conditional reasoning task

“…According to one view, content and context effects on reasoning are attributable to interpretive factors. In this view, inferential mechanisms may conform to prescriptions of normative logic, but interpretive mechanisms introduce influences that ultimately affect logicality (Henle, 1962;Klaczynski & Narasimham, 1998;Ohm & Thompson, 2004;Thompson, 1994;Verbrugge, Dieussaert, Schaeken, & Van Belle, 2004;Verschueren, Schroyens, Schaeken, & d'Ydewalle, 2001). According to this hypothesis, if you consider the rule participants are actually reasoning about (i.e., their interpretation of the rule provided by the experimenter), then responses conform to the standards of logic.…”

“…It is raining, therefore, I am getting wet) have been used to explore the ways in which people reason, and whether this conforms to the prescriptions of logic. Through empirical research, it has become clear that human performance is affected by a number of factors, related to the content or context of the rules, that are not, strictly speaking, relevant within a logical system (Cheng & Holyoak, 1985;Evans, 1989Evans, , 1998Goel & Dolan, 2003;Markovits, 1986;Markovits & Nantel, 1989;Ohm & Thompson, 2004).…”

Utility templates for the interpretation of conditional statements

“…The theory of utility conditionals (Bonnefon, 2009) was developed to predict the inferences that people draw from conditional sentences featuring valued actions and consequences (Bonnefon, Girotto, & Legrenzi, 2012;Bonnefon & Hilton, 2004;Bonnefon & Sloman, in press;Corner, Hahn, & Oaksford, 2011;Evans, Neilens, Handley, & Over, 2008;Haigh, Stewart, Wood, & Connell, 2011;Ohm & Thompson, 2004;Thompson, Evans, & Handley, 2005). For our current purpose, we are mostly interested in the systematic notation scheme that the theory affords.…”

Conditional advice and inducements: Are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension?

“…For example, a patient reading the conditional advice "If you choose treatment X, then your quality of life will improve" could misinterpret this statement (a tip) as a promise. This seemingly trivial error is potentially dangerous as promises presuppose a stronger causal relationship between antecedent and consequent than a tip, and are therefore likely to induce the stated action to a greater degree than the author might intend (Ohm & Thompson, 2004). For this reason it is important to understand exactly how everyday conditional speech acts are represented during comprehension.…”