Utility conditionals as consequential arguments: A random sampling experiment

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 379-393

  Bonnefon, Jean François ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Argument; Conditional; Preference; Sampling; Utility

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862309387     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.670751     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J. F. and Prade, H. 2005. An argumentation-based approach for multiple criteria decision. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3571: 269-280.
2. Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J. F. and Prade, H. 2007. The logical handling of threats, rewards, tips, and warnings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 4724: 235-246.
3. Beller, S., Bender, A. and Kuhnmünch, G. 2005. Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking & Reasoning, 11: 209-238.
4. Bonnefon, J. F. 2004. Reinstatement, floating conclusions, and the credulity of mental model reasoning. Cognitive Science, 28: 621-631.
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., Dubois, D., Fargier, H. and Leblois, S. 2008. Qualitative heuristics for balancing the pros and cons. Theory and Decision, 65: 71-95.
7. Bonnefon, J. F., Girotto, V. and Legrenzi, P. 2012. The psychology of reasoning about preferences and unconsequential decisions. Synthese, 187, 27-41
8. Bonnefon, J. F. and Hilton, D. J. 2004. Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valued outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30: 28-37.
9. Corner, A. and Hahn, U. 2007. Evaluating the meta-slope: Is there a slippery slope argument against slippery slope arguments?. Argumentation, 21: 349-359.
10. Corner, A. and Hahn, U. 2009. Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty and argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15: 199-212.
11. Corner, A., Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2011. The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64: 153-170.
12. Dubois, D., Fargier, H. and Bonnefon, J. F. 2008. On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 32: 385-417.
13. Evans, J. St. B. T. 2005. The social and communicative function of conditional statements. Mind & Society, 4: 97-113.
14. Evans, J. St. B. T., Neilens, H., Handley, S. J. and Over, D. E. 2008. When can we say 'if'?. Cognition, 108: 100-116.
15. Evans, J. St. B. T. and Twyman-Musgrove, J. 1998. Conditional reasoning with inducements and advice. Cognition, 69: B11-B16.
16. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2006. A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese, 152: 207-236.
17. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to argument fallacies. Psychological Review, 114: 704-732.
18. Haigh, M., Stewart, A. J., Wood, J. S. and Connell, L. 2011. Conditional advice and inducements: Are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension?. Acta Psychologica, 136: 419-424.
19. Hoeken, H., Timmers, R. and Schellens, P. J. 2012 this issue. Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?. Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 394-416.
20. Legrenzi, P., Politzer, G. and Girotto, V. 1996. Contract proposals: A sketch of a grammar. Theory & Psychology, 6: 247-265.
21. López-Rousseau, A. and Ketelaar, T. 2006. Juliet: If they do see thee, they will murder thee: A satisficing algorithm for pragmatic conditionals. Mind & Society, 5: 71-77.
22. Miller, D. T. 1999. The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54: 1053-1060.
23. Ohm, E. and Thompson, V. 2004. Everyday reasoning with inducements and advice. Thinking & Reasoning, 10: 241-272.
24. Ohm, E. and Thompson, V. 2006. Conditional probability and pragmatic conditionals: Dissociating truth and effectiveness. Thinking & Reasoning, 12: 257-280.
25. Rahwan, I., Madakkatel, M. I., Bonnefon, J. F., Awan, R. N. and Abdallah, S. 2010. Behavioral experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement. Cognitive Science, 34: 1483-1502.
26. Smedslund, J. 1997. The structure of psychological common sense, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
27. Thompson, V. A. and Evans, J. St. B. T. 2012 this issue. Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 278-310.
28. Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B. T. and Handley, S. J. 2005. Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 238-257.
29. Verbrugge, S., Dieussaert, K., Schaeken, W. and Van Belle, W. 2004. Promise is debt, threat another matter: The effect of credibility on the interpretation of conditional promises and threats. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58: 106-112.
30. Walton, D. 1999. Historical origins of argumentum ad consequentiam. Argumentation, 13: 251-264.