Work

Norm conflicts and conditionals.

Year: 2019

Type: article

Abstract: Suppose that 2 competing norms, N₁ and N₂, can be identified such that a given person's response can be interpreted as correct according to N₁ but incorrect according to N₂. Which of these two norms, if any, should one use to interpret such a response? In this article, we seek to address this fundamental problem by studying individual variation in the interpretation of conditionals by establishing individual profiles of the participants based on their case judgments and reflective attitudes. To investigate participants' reflective attitudes, we introduce a new experimental paradigm called the scorekeeping task. As a case study, we identify the participants who follow the suppositional theory of conditionals (N₁) versus inferentialism (N₂) and investigate to what extent internally consistent competence models can be reconstructed for the participants on this basis. After extensive empirical investigations, an apparent reasoning error with and-to-if inferences was found in 1 of these 2 groups. The implications of this case study for debates on the proper role of normative considerations in psychology are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Source: Psychological Review

DOI: 10.1037/rev0000150

Authors: Niels Skovgaard-Olsen, David Kellen, Ulrike Hahn, Karl Christoph Klauer

Institutions: University of Göttingen, Syracuse University, Birkbeck, University of London, University of Freiburg

Language: English

Topic: Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Subfield: Language and Linguistics

Field: Arts and Humanities

Domain: Social Sciences

Open Access status: green

Funders: Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Award: Evaluating Continuous, Discrete, and Hybrid Models of Recognition Memory