Seeking the Category: The Pragmatic Function of Formal Explanations and the Role of Cognitive Reflection

IF 2.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Ivan Aslanov, Alexey Kotov, Ernesto Guerra, Alina Fedoriaieva, Tatyana Kotova
{"title":"Seeking the Category: The Pragmatic Function of Formal Explanations and the Role of Cognitive Reflection","authors":"Ivan Aslanov,&nbsp;Alexey Kotov,&nbsp;Ernesto Guerra,&nbsp;Alina Fedoriaieva,&nbsp;Tatyana Kotova","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Formal explanations are statements that explain properties of an object by referring to its category. This study investigates the role of pragmatics in the evaluation of formal explanations. Across six experiments, we examined how a questioner's knowledge of category identity and an explanation's capability to specify a category affect satisfaction with such explanations. Experiments 1a and 1b demonstrate that participants find formal explanations less satisfactory when the questioner is already aware of the category identity. Experiments 2a and 2b show that participants assumed a questioner was unaware of an object's category if they were satisfied with the formal explanation. In Experiment 3, open-ended responses revealed that satisfied questioners were perceived as seeking to learn a category identity, while dissatisfied ones were assumed to have other motives. Finally, Experiment 4 compares tautological formal explanations (where a label points to all categories possessing a particular feature at once) and nontautological ones (where a label points to one of several competing categories), and examines the role of cognitive reflection in their evaluation. It demonstrates that people with high cognitive reflection are more sensitive to pragmatic context and value a formal explanation more if it can identify a specific category. This study shows that formal explanations are satisfactory when they fulfill a specific pragmatic function, namely, helping to define a category when the questioner knows only its feature. It also shows that people prone to automatic intuitive responses are less likely to consider this function and tend to evaluate formal explanations independently of this part of the pragmatic context.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70101","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Formal explanations are statements that explain properties of an object by referring to its category. This study investigates the role of pragmatics in the evaluation of formal explanations. Across six experiments, we examined how a questioner's knowledge of category identity and an explanation's capability to specify a category affect satisfaction with such explanations. Experiments 1a and 1b demonstrate that participants find formal explanations less satisfactory when the questioner is already aware of the category identity. Experiments 2a and 2b show that participants assumed a questioner was unaware of an object's category if they were satisfied with the formal explanation. In Experiment 3, open-ended responses revealed that satisfied questioners were perceived as seeking to learn a category identity, while dissatisfied ones were assumed to have other motives. Finally, Experiment 4 compares tautological formal explanations (where a label points to all categories possessing a particular feature at once) and nontautological ones (where a label points to one of several competing categories), and examines the role of cognitive reflection in their evaluation. It demonstrates that people with high cognitive reflection are more sensitive to pragmatic context and value a formal explanation more if it can identify a specific category. This study shows that formal explanations are satisfactory when they fulfill a specific pragmatic function, namely, helping to define a category when the questioner knows only its feature. It also shows that people prone to automatic intuitive responses are less likely to consider this function and tend to evaluate formal explanations independently of this part of the pragmatic context.

寻找范畴:形式解释的语用功能与认知反思的作用
形式解释是指通过引用对象的类别来解释对象属性的陈述。本研究探讨语用学在形式解释评价中的作用。在六个实验中,我们研究了提问者对类别认同的知识和解释者指定类别的能力如何影响对这种解释的满意度。实验1a和1b表明,当提问者已经意识到类别认同时,参与者发现形式解释不太令人满意。实验2a和2b表明,如果参与者对提问者的正式解释感到满意,他们就会假设提问者不知道物体的类别。在实验3中,开放式回答显示,满意的提问者被认为是在寻求学习类别认同,而不满意的提问者被认为有其他动机。最后,实验4比较了同义反复的形式解释(其中一个标签同时指向具有特定特征的所有类别)和非同义反复的形式解释(其中一个标签指向几个相互竞争的类别之一),并检查了认知反射在其评估中的作用。研究表明,认知反射高的人对语用语境更敏感,如果形式解释能识别特定类别,则更重视形式解释。本研究表明,当形式解释满足特定的语用功能时,即在提问者只知道其特征的情况下帮助定义一个类别时,形式解释是令人满意的。它还表明,倾向于自动直觉反应的人不太可能考虑这一功能,并倾向于独立于语用语境的这一部分来评估正式解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信