Differences in the Evaluation of Generic Statements About Human and Non‐Human Categories

Cognitive Science 41 (7):1934-1957 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Generic statements express generalizations about categories. Current theories suggest that people should be especially inclined to accept generics that involve threatening information. However, previous tests of this claim have focused on generics about non-human categories, which raises the question of whether this effect applies as readily to human categories. In Experiment 1, adults were more likely to accept generics involving a threatening property for artifacts, but this negativity bias did not also apply to human categories. Experiment 2 examined an alternative hypothesis for this result, and Experiments 3 and 4 served as conceptual replications of the first experiment. Experiment 5 found that even preschoolers apply generics differently for humans and artifacts. Finally, Experiment 6 showed that these effects reflect differences between human and non-human categories more generally, as adults showed a negativity bias for categories of non-human animals, but not for categories of humans. These findings suggest the presence of important, early-emerging domain differences in people's judgments about generics.
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-07-11
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Beliefs About the True Self Explain Asymmetries Based on Moral Judgment.Newman, George E.; De Freitas, Julian & Knobe, Joshua

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
261 ( #17,112 of 50,108 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
24 ( #25,477 of 50,108 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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