Norm Conflicts and Conditionals

Niels Skovgaard-Olsen, David van der Kellen Mendes, Ulrike Hahn, Karl Christoph Klauer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Suppose that 2 competing norms, N 1 and N 2 , can be identified such that a given person's response can be interpreted as correct according to N1 but incorrect according to N 2 . 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 (N 1 ) versus inferentialism (N 2 ) 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPsychological Review
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Mental Competency
Psychology
Conflict (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Bayesian mixture modeling
  • Conditionals
  • Problem of arbitration
  • Reflective attitudes
  • Relevance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Norm Conflicts and Conditionals. / Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels; van der Kellen Mendes, David; Hahn, Ulrike; Klauer, Karl Christoph.

In: Psychological Review, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels ; van der Kellen Mendes, David ; Hahn, Ulrike ; Klauer, Karl Christoph. / Norm Conflicts and Conditionals. In: Psychological Review. 2019.
@article{c9357a9af6ef45de9456760b3198de7a,
title = "Norm Conflicts and Conditionals",
abstract = "Suppose that 2 competing norms, N 1 and N 2 , can be identified such that a given person's response can be interpreted as correct according to N1 but incorrect according to N 2 . 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 (N 1 ) versus inferentialism (N 2 ) 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.",
keywords = "Bayesian mixture modeling, Conditionals, Problem of arbitration, Reflective attitudes, Relevance",
author = "Niels Skovgaard-Olsen and {van der Kellen Mendes}, David and Ulrike Hahn and Klauer, {Karl Christoph}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/rev0000150",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Psychological Review",
issn = "0033-295X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Norm Conflicts and Conditionals

AU - Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels

AU - van der Kellen Mendes, David

AU - Hahn, Ulrike

AU - Klauer, Karl Christoph

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Suppose that 2 competing norms, N 1 and N 2 , can be identified such that a given person's response can be interpreted as correct according to N1 but incorrect according to N 2 . 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 (N 1 ) versus inferentialism (N 2 ) 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.

AB - Suppose that 2 competing norms, N 1 and N 2 , can be identified such that a given person's response can be interpreted as correct according to N1 but incorrect according to N 2 . 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 (N 1 ) versus inferentialism (N 2 ) 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.

KW - Bayesian mixture modeling

KW - Conditionals

KW - Problem of arbitration

KW - Reflective attitudes

KW - Relevance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064953031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064953031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/rev0000150

DO - 10.1037/rev0000150

M3 - Article

JO - Psychological Review

JF - Psychological Review

SN - 0033-295X

ER -