Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bonnefon, Jean-François; Haigh, Matthew; Stewart, Andrew (2013)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: C800
People often use conditional statements to describe configurations of agents, actions and valued consequences. In this paper we propose the existence of utility templates, a special subset of these configurations that exert strong constraints on how people interpret conditionals. We conducted an initial completion survey which identified four potential utility templates. Four experiments then examined characteristic effects of these templates: When a described novel situation is close enough to a pre-existing template, people interpret ambiguous information associated with that situation or reinterpret current information in such a way that their understanding of the novel situation fits the template. A process explanation of these effects is considered which allows for the principled generation of other templates, and offers a possible reformulation of the findings within the framework of relevance theory.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 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.
    • Bonnefon, J. F. (2009). A theory of utility conditionals: Paralogical reasoning from decision-theoretic leakage. Psychological Review, 116, 888-907.
    • Bonnefon, J. F. (2012). Utility conditionals as consequential arguments: A random sampling experiment. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 379-393.
    • Bonnefon, J. F., Girotto, V., & Legrenzi, P. (2012). The psychology of reasoning about preferences and unconsequential decisions. Synthese, 187 , 27-41.
    • 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.
    • Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17 , 391-416.
    • Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 153-170.
    • Cosmides, L., Barrett, H. C., & Tooby, J. (2010). Adaptive specializations, social exchange, and the evolution of human intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 107 , 9007-9014.
    • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2005). The social and communicative function of conditional statements. Mind & Society, 4, 97-113.
    • Evans, J. S. B. T., Neilens, H., Handley, S. J., & Over, D. E. (2008). When can we say 'if'? Cognition, 108, 100-116.
    • Haigh, M., Stewart, A. J., Wood, J. S., & Connell, L. (2011). Conditional advice and inducements: Are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension? Acta Psychologica, 136, 419-424.
    • Hilton, D. J., Kemmelmeier, M., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2005). Putting ifs to work: Goal-based relevance in conditional directives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 388-405.
    • Legrenzi, P., G., & Girotto, V. (1996). Contract proposals: a sketch of a grammar. Theory & Psychology, 6, 247-265.
    • López-Rousseau, A., Diesendruck, G., & Benozio, A. (2011). My kingdom for a horse: On incredible promises and unpersuasive warnings. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19, 399-421.
    • 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.
    • Ohm, E., & Thompson, V. (2004). Everyday reasoning with inducements and advice. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 241-272.
    • Perham, N. R., & Oaksford, M. (2005). Deontic reasoning with emotional content: Evolutionary psychology or decision theory? Cognitive Science, 29, 681-718.
    • Politzer, G., & Nguyen-Xuan, A. (1992). Reasoning about conditional promises and warnings: Darwinian algorithms, mental models, relevance judgements or pragmatic schemas? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 401-412.
    • Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339-1362.
    • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance, communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1986)
    • 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.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article