Norm Conflicts and Conditionals

Psychological Review (5):611-633 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Suppose that two 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 paper 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 the 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 one of these two groups. The implications of this case study for debates on the proper role of normative considerations in psychology are discussed.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2019-02-15
Latest version: 2 (2019-03-08)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
The Enigma of Reason.Sperber, Dan & Mercier, Hugo (eds.)

View all 94 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Ranking Theory.Kern-Isberner, Gabriele; Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels & Spohn, Wolfgang
The Dialogical Entailment Task.Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
401 ( #10,876 of 50,528 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
104 ( #4,616 of 50,528 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.