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
Abstract
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
2017
PhilPapers/Archive ID
TASDIT
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-07-11
View other versions
Added to PP index
2016-07-11

Total views
292 ( #17,371 of 54,432 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
35 ( #20,587 of 54,432 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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