Generics (e.g., "Ravens are black") express generalizations about categories or their members. Previous research found that generics about animals are interpreted as broadly true of members of a kind, yet also accepted based on minimal evidence. This asymmetry is important for suggesting a mechanism by which unfounded generalizations may flourish; yet, little is known whether this finding extends to generics about groups of people (heretofore, "social generics"). Accordingly, in four preregistered studies (n = 665), we tested for an inferential asymmetry for generics regarding novel groups of animals versus people. Participants were randomly assigned to either an Implied Prevalence task (given a generic, asked to estimate the prevalence of a property) or a Truth-Conditions task (given prevalence information, asked whether a generic was true or false). A generic asymmetry was found in both domains, at equivalent levels. The asymmetry also extended to properties varying in valence (dangerous and neutral). Finally, there were differences as a function of property valence in the Implied Prevalence task and a small but consistent interaction between domain and prevalence in the Truth-Conditions task. We discuss the implications of these results for the semantics of generics, theoretical accounts of the asymmetry, and the relation between generics and stereotyping.

Generic Language for Social and Animal Kinds: An Examination of the Asymmetry Between Acceptance and Inferences / Cella, F.; Marchak, K. A.; Bianchi, C.; Gelman, S. A.. - In: COGNITIVE SCIENCE. - ISSN 1551-6709. - 46:12(2022), pp. 1-36. [10.1111/cogs.13209]

Generic Language for Social and Animal Kinds: An Examination of the Asymmetry Between Acceptance and Inferences

Cella F.
;
Bianchi C.;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Generics (e.g., "Ravens are black") express generalizations about categories or their members. Previous research found that generics about animals are interpreted as broadly true of members of a kind, yet also accepted based on minimal evidence. This asymmetry is important for suggesting a mechanism by which unfounded generalizations may flourish; yet, little is known whether this finding extends to generics about groups of people (heretofore, "social generics"). Accordingly, in four preregistered studies (n = 665), we tested for an inferential asymmetry for generics regarding novel groups of animals versus people. Participants were randomly assigned to either an Implied Prevalence task (given a generic, asked to estimate the prevalence of a property) or a Truth-Conditions task (given prevalence information, asked whether a generic was true or false). A generic asymmetry was found in both domains, at equivalent levels. The asymmetry also extended to properties varying in valence (dangerous and neutral). Finally, there were differences as a function of property valence in the Implied Prevalence task and a small but consistent interaction between domain and prevalence in the Truth-Conditions task. We discuss the implications of these results for the semantics of generics, theoretical accounts of the asymmetry, and the relation between generics and stereotyping.
2022
Animal categories
Conceptual domains
Generic language
Social categories
Stereotyping
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Cella Marchak Bianchi Gelman_2022_GenericLanguageForSocialAndAnimalKinds_CognitiveScience.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipologia: PDF editoriale (versione pubblicata dall'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 966.29 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
966.29 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Cella_etal_2022_CogScience_SuppMat.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: materiali
Tipologia: Post-print (versione valutata in peer review)
Licenza: Copyright dell'autore
Dimensione 1.14 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.14 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/135798
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact