The psychology of reasoning about preferences and unconsequential decisions

Synthese

Volumn 185, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2012, Pages 27-41

  Bonnefon, Jean François ^a   Girotto, Vittorio ^b,c   Legrenzi, Paolo ^d  

^a CNRS UPS 846   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY IUAV OF VENICE   (Italy)

^d CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Belief revision; Experiment; Preferences; Reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860918073     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-011-9957-x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Amgoud L., Bonnefon J. F., Prade H. (2007) The logical handling of threats, rewards, tips, and warnings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4724: 235-246.
2. Beller S., Bender A., Kuhnmunch G. (2005) Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking and Reasoning 11: 209-238.
3. Benferhat S., Bonnefon J. F., Da Silva Neves R. M. (2005) An overview of possibilistic handling of default reasoning, with experimental studies. Synthese 146: 53-70.
4. Bex F., Bench-Capon T., Atkinson K. (2009) Did he jump or was he pushed? Abductive practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17: 79-99.
5. Bonnefon J. F. (2009) A theory of utility conditionals: Paralogical reasoning from decision-theoretic leakage. Psychological Review 116: 888-907.
6. Bonnefon J. F., Hilton D. J. (2004) Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valued outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30: 28-37.
7. Bonnefon J. F., Sloman S. A. (2011) The causal structure of utility conditionals. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8. Braine M. D. S. (1978) On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic. Psychological Review 85: 1-21.
9. Byrne R. M. J. (1989) Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition 31: 61-83.
10. Chater N., Crocker M., Pickering M. (1998) The rational analysis of inquiry: The case for parsing. In: Chater N., Oaksford M. (eds) Rational models of cognition.Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 441-468.
11. De Neys W., Schaeken W., d'Ydewalle G. (2003) Inference suppression and semantic memory retrieval: Every counterexample counts. Memory and Cognition 31: 581-595.
12. Dieussaert K., Schaeken W., De Neys W., d'Ydewalle G. (2000) Initial belief state as a predictor of belief revision. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 19: 277-288.
13. Elio R., Pelletier F. J. (1997) Belief change as propositional update. Cognitive Science 21: 419-460.
14. Evans J. S. B. T. (2002) Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin 128: 978-996.
15. Evans J. S. B. T. (2005) The social and communicative function of conditional statements. Mind & Society 4: 97-113.
16. Evans J. S. B. T., Neilens H., Handley S. J., Over D. E. (2008) When can we say 'if'?. Cognition 108: 100-116.
17. Evans, J. S. B. T., Newstead, S., & Byrne, R. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Psychology Press.
18. Ficici, S. G., & Pfeer, A. (2008). Simultaneously modeling humans' preferences and their beliefs about others' preferences. In Proceedings of AAMAS'08 (pp. 323-330). Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
19. Harman G. (1986) Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA.
20. James W. (1907) Pragmatism-A new name for some old ways of thinking. Longmans Green, & Co, New York.
21. Johnson-Laird P. N., Byrne R. M. J. (1991) Deduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ.
22. Johnson-Laird P. N., Girotto V., Legrenzi P. (2004) Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency. Psychological Review 111: 640-661.
23. Legrenzi P., Politzer G., Girotto V. (1996) Contract proposals: A sketch of a grammar. Theory & Psychology 6: 247-265.
24. López-Rousseau A., Ketelaar T. (2004) "If.": Satisficing algorithms for mapping conditional statements onto social domains. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 16: 807-823.
25. López-Rousseau A., Ketelaar T. (2006) Juliet: If they do see thee, they will murder thee: A satisficing algorithm for pragmatic conditionals. Mind & Society 5: 71-77.
26. Markovits H., Schmeltzer C. (2007) What makes people revise their beliefs following contradictory anecdotal evidence? The in uence of systemic variability and direct experience. Cognitive Science 31: 535-547.
27. Miller D. T. (1999) The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist 54: 1053-1060.
28. Oaksford M., Chater N. (2003) Optimal data selection: Revision, review and re-evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10: 289-318.
29. Oaksford M., Chater N., Grainger B. (1999) Probabilistic effects in data selection. Thinking and Reasoning 5: 193-243.
30. Ohm E., Thompson V. (2004) Everyday reasoning with inducements and advice. Thinking and Reasoning 10: 241-272.
31. Ohm E., Thompson V. (2006) Conditional probability and pragmatic conditionals: Dissociating truth and effectiveness. Thinking and Reasoning 12: 257-280.
32. Politzer G., Bonnefon J. F. (2006) Two varieties of conditionals and two kinds of defeaters help reveal two fundamental types of reasoning. Mind and Language 21: 484-503.
33. Politzer G., Carles L. (2001) Belief revision and uncertain reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 7: 217-234.
34. Ratner R. K., Miller D. T. (1998) The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 53-62.
35. Rips L. J. (1983) Cognitive processes in propositional reasoning. Psychological Review 90: 38-71.
36. Smedslund J. (1997) The structure of psychological common sense. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
37. Stenning K., van Lambalgen M. (2005) Semantic interpretation as computation in nonmonotonic logic: The real meaning of the suppression task. Cognitive Science 29: 919-960.
38. Thompson V. A., Evans J. S. B. T., Handley S. J. (2005) Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language 53: 238-257.
39. Wason P. C., Johnson-Laird P. N. (1972) Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Batsford, London.