Deontic norms, deontic reasoning, and deontic conditionals

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 305-341

  Beller, Sieghard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conditionals; Content effects; Deontic reasoning; Dual source approach

Indexed keywords

EID: 55249106906     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546780802222258     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anderson, A. R. (1956). The formal analysis of normative systems. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 147-213). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
2. Åqvist, L. (1987). Introduction to deontic logic and the theory of normative systems. Napoli, Italy: Bibliopolis.
3. Bascelli, E., & Barbieri, M. S. (2002). Italian children's understanding of the epistemic and deontic modal verbs dovere (must) and potere (may). Journal of Child Language, 29, 87-107.
4. Beller, S. (2001). A model theory of deontic reasoning about social norms. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 63-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
5. Beller, S. (2003). The flexible use of deontic mental models. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 127-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
6. Beller, S., Bender, A., & Kuhnmünch, G. (2005). Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking and Reasoning, 11, 209-238.
7. Beller, S., & Kuhnmünch, G. (2007). What causal conditional reasoning tells us about people's understanding of causality. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 426-460.
8. Beller, S., & Spada, H. (2003). The logic of content effects in propositional reasoning: The case of conditional reasoning with a point of view. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 335-378.
9. Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2003). Polynesian tapu in the 'deontic square': A cognitive concept, its linguistic expression and cultural context. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 133-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
10. Bucciarelli, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). Naïve deontics: A theory of meaning, representation, and reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 159-193.
11. Byrne, R. M. J. (1989). Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition, 31, 61-83.
12. Chellas, B. F. (1980). Modal logic: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391-416.
14. Coates, J. (1988). The acquisition of the meanings of modality in children aged eight and twelve. Journal of Child Language, 15, 425-434.
15. Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187-276.
16. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part II - Case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 51-97.
17. Cummins, D. D. (1996). Evidence for the innateness of deontic reasoning. Mind & Language, 11, 160-190.
18. Cummins, D. D. (1998). Social norms and other minds: The evolutionary roots of higher cognition. In D. D. Cummins & C. A. Allen (Eds.), The evolution of the mind (pp. 30-50). New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Dunbar, G. L. (2000). Traces of reasoning with pragmatic schemas. Thinking and Reasoning, 6, 173-181.
20. Fiddick, L. (2004). Domains of deontic reasoning: Resolving the discrepancy between the cognitive and moral reasoning literatures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 57A, 447-474.
21. Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). No interpretation without representation: The role of domain-specific representations and inferences in the Wason selection task. Cognition, 77, 1-79.
22. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York. Academic Press.
23. Griggs, R. A., & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 407-420.
24. Hiraishi, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2001). Sharing-rule and detection of free-riders in cooperative groups: Evolutionarily important deontic reasoning in the Wason selection task. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 255-294.
25. Hirst, W., & Weil, J. (1982). Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modals. Journal of Child Language, 9, 659-666.
26. Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (1995a). Pragmatic reasoning about human voluntary action: Evidence from Wason's selection task. In S. Newstead & J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking and reasoning (pp. 67-89). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
27. Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (1995b). Pragmatic reasoning with a point of view. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 289-313.
28. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1978). The meaning of modality. Cognitive Science, 2, 17-26.
29. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 616-678.
30. Kennedy, J. J. (1992). Analyzing qualitative data. New York: Praeger.
31. Kilpatrick, S. G., Manktelow, K. I., & Over, D. E. (2007). Power of source as a factor in deontic inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 295-317.
32. Kirby, K. N. (1994). Probabilities and utilities of fictional outcomes in Wason's four card selection task. Cognition, 51, 1-28.
33. Klaczynski, P. A., & Narasimham, G. (1998). Representations as mediators of adolescent deductive reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 34, 865-881.
34. Manktelow, K. I., Fairley, N., Kilpatrick, S. G., & Over, D. E. (2000). Pragmatics and strategies for practical reasoning. In W. Schaeken, G. D'Ydewalle, G. De Vooght, & A. Vandierendonck (Eds.), Deductive reasoning and strategies (pp. 111-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
35. Manktelow, K. I., & Over, D. E. (1991). Social roles and utilities in reasoning with deontic conditionals. Cognition, 39, 85-105.
36. Neth, H., & Beller, S. (1999). How knowledge interferes with reasoning - Suppression effects by content and context. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 468-473). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
37. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
38. Over, D. E., Manktelow, K. I., & Hadjichristidis, C. (2004). Conditions for the acceptance of deontic conditionals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 96-105.
39. Perham, N., & Oaksford, M. (2005). Deontic reasoning with emotional content: Evolutionary psychology or decision theory. Cognitive Science, 29, 681-718.
40. Quelhas, A. C., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2003). Reasoning with deontic and counterfactual conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 43-65.
41. Thompson, V. A. (1994). Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 22, 742-758.
42. Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135-151). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.