Conditional probability and pragmatic conditionals: Dissociating truth and effectiveness
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Recent research (e.g., Evans & Over, Citation2004) has provided support for the hypothesis that people evaluate the probability of conditional statements of the form if p then q as the conditional probability of q given p, P(q/p). The present paper extends this approach to pragmatic conditionals in the form of inducements (i.e., promises and threats) and advice (i.e., tips and warnings). In so doing, we demonstrate a distinction between the truth status of these conditionals and their effectiveness as speech acts. Specifically, while probability judgements of the truth of conditional inducements and advice are highly correlated with estimates of P(q/p), their perceived effectiveness in changing behaviour instead varies as a function of the conditional probability of q given not-p, P(q/∼p). Finally, we show that the conditional probability approach can be extended to predicting inference rates on a conditional reasoning task. Notes 1Oaksford and colleagues have recently used a similar method of calculating conditional probabilities from estimates of the four truth-table cases to successfully account for performance on another conditional reasoning task, namely the Wason selection task (e.g., Oaksford & Moussakowski, Citation2004; Oaksford & Wakefield, Citation2003). 2For the interested reader, mean inference rates for each conditional statement are presented in Appendix B. This appendix also shows, for each conditional, the four computed conditional probabilities. 3This pattern was obtained when each inference type was analysed separately, except that for both DA and AC, the valence factor was significant while the interaction did not reach significance. 4Indeed, the correlation between P(q/∼p) and behavioural effectiveness for advice (although non-significant) was in the positive direction. This positive correlation was, however, mostly due to one warning conditional; upon removal of this statement, this correlation was close to zero. 5To deal with the possibility of non-linearity, we applied a square root transformation to the truth variable. However, the correlation between behavioural effectiveness and truth ratings remained unchanged after this transformation. Additional informationNotes on contributorsEyvind Ohm The authors gratefully acknowledge an operating grant from Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We also would like to thank Jonathan Evans and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle