Skip to main content
Log in

The psychology of reasoning about preferences and unconsequential decisions

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

People can reason about the preferences of other agents, and predict their behavior based on these preferences. Surprisingly, the psychology of reasoning has long neglected this fact, and focused instead on disinterested inferences, of which preferences are neither an input nor an output. This exclusive focus is untenable, though, as there is mounting evidence that reasoners take into account the preferences of others, at the expense of logic when logic and preferences point to different conclusions. This article summarizes the most recent account of how reasoners predict the behavior and attitude of other agents based on conditional rules describing actions and their consequences, and reports new experimental data about which assumptions reasoners retract when their predictions based on preferences turn out to be false.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Beller S., Bender A., Kuhnmunch G. (2005) Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking and Reasoning 11: 209–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon J. F. (2009) A theory of utility conditionals: Paralogical reasoning from decision-theoretic leakage. Psychological Review 116: 888–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon J. F., Sloman S. A. (2011) The causal structure of utility conditionals. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Braine M. D. S. (1978) On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic. Psychological Review 85: 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne R. M. J. (1989) Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition 31: 61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • De Neys W., Schaeken W., d’Ydewalle G. (2003) Inference suppression and semantic memory retrieval: Every counterexample counts. Memory and Cognition 31: 581–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Elio R., Pelletier F. J. (1997) Belief change as propositional update. Cognitive Science 21: 419–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J. S. B. T. (2002) Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin 128: 978–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J. S. B. T. (2005) The social and communicative function of conditional statements. Mind & Society 4: 97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J. S. B. T., Neilens H., Handley S. J., Over D. E. (2008) When can we say ‘if’?. Cognition 108: 100–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T., Newstead, S., & Byrne, R. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Psychology Press.

  • 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.

  • Harman G. (1986) Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • James W. (1907) Pragmatism—A new name for some old ways of thinking. Longmans Green, & Co, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird P. N., Byrne R. M. J. (1991) Deduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird P. N., Girotto V., Legrenzi P. (2004) Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency. Psychological Review 111: 640–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legrenzi P., Politzer G., Girotto V. (1996) Contract proposals: A sketch of a grammar. Theory & Psychology 6: 247–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Rousseau A., Ketelaar T. (2004) “If...”: Satisficing algorithms for mapping conditional statements onto social domains. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 16: 807–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D. T. (1999) The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist 54: 1053–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford M., Chater N. (2003) Optimal data selection: Revision, review and re-evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10: 289–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford M., Chater N., Grainger B. (1999) Probabilistic effects in data selection. Thinking and Reasoning 5: 193–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohm E., Thompson V. (2004) Everyday reasoning with inducements and advice. Thinking and Reasoning 10: 241–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohm E., Thompson V. (2006) Conditional probability and pragmatic conditionals: Dissociating truth and effectiveness. Thinking and Reasoning 12: 257–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Politzer G., Carles L. (2001) Belief revision and uncertain reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 7: 217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rips L. J. (1983) Cognitive processes in propositional reasoning. Psychological Review 90: 38–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund J. (1997) The structure of psychological common sense. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason P. C., Johnson-Laird P. N. (1972) Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Batsford, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-François Bonnefon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bonnefon, JF., Girotto, V. & Legrenzi, P. The psychology of reasoning about preferences and unconsequential decisions. Synthese 185 (Suppl 1), 27–41 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9957-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9957-x

Keywords

Navigation