Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals

Valid conclusions can be defeated if people can think of conditions that prevent the consequent to occur although the antecedent is given. The goal of the present research was to investigate how people consider these conditions when reasoning with legal conditionals such as “If a person kills anothe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Memory & cognition 2016-04, Vol.44 (3), p.499-517
Main Authors: Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania, Knauff, Markus
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Attorneys
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Crime - psychology
Criminal liability
Criminal sentences
Emotions
Female
Humans
Imprisonment
Law
Logic
Male
Manslaughter
Morals
Philosophy
Psychology
Punishment - psychology
Students
Studies
Thinking
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-cc3f1d9b9445b5707cb9741c622fe13fe07f6dbed23a8ab9a0acf79fa1fe90e23
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-cc3f1d9b9445b5707cb9741c622fe13fe07f6dbed23a8ab9a0acf79fa1fe90e23
container_end_page 517
container_issue 3
container_start_page 499
container_title Memory & cognition
container_volume 44
creator Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania
Knauff, Markus
description Valid conclusions can be defeated if people can think of conditions that prevent the consequent to occur although the antecedent is given. The goal of the present research was to investigate how people consider these conditions when reasoning with legal conditionals such as “If a person kills another human, then this person should be punished for manslaughter.” In Experiments 1 and 2 legal conditionals were presented to participants together with exculpatory circumstances, i.e., counterexamples. The participants’ task was to decide whether they would adhere to the legal conditional rule and punish the offender. Participants were either lawyers (i.e., advanced law students and graduate lawyers) or legal laypeople. We found that laypeople often ignore exculpatory circumstances and adhere to the conditional rule when offences evoked high levels of moral outrage. Lawyers did not show this effect. In Experiment 3 laypeople showed difficulties even when asked to simply imagine exculpatory circumstances for highly morally outrageous offences. Results provide new evidence for the role of emotions – like moral outrage – in the consideration of counterexamples to legal conditionals.
doi_str_mv 10.3758/s13421-015-0574-7
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1777980140</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1777980140</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-cc3f1d9b9445b5707cb9741c622fe13fe07f6dbed23a8ab9a0acf79fa1fe90e23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMo7vrxA7xIwYsHo5M0aZqjrJ-w4EXBW0jTydql265Ni_jvzdJVRPA0A_PMO8NDyAmDy1TJ_CqwVHBGgUkKUgmqdsiUyZRTqUW2S6YAGqgE_johByEsAUBKne2TCc-yXCsQU3Jxgx5tqIoaky42bVM1i-Sj6t-SGhe2TlzblFVftY2twxHZ87Hg8bYekpe72-fZA50_3T_OrufUCSZ76lzqWakLLYQspALlCq0EcxnnHlnqEZTPygJLntrcFtqCdV5pb5lHDcjTQ3I-5q679n3A0JtVFRzWtW2wHYJhSimdAxMQ0bM_6LIdus2zkcqZlFxpFik2Uq5rQ-jQm3VXrWz3aRiYjUozqjRRpdmoNCrunG6Th2KF5c_Gt7sI8BEIcdQssPt1-t_ULyhmfd4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781552791</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals</title><source>Business Source Ultimate</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania ; Knauff, Markus</creator><creatorcontrib>Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania ; Knauff, Markus</creatorcontrib><description>Valid conclusions can be defeated if people can think of conditions that prevent the consequent to occur although the antecedent is given. The goal of the present research was to investigate how people consider these conditions when reasoning with legal conditionals such as “If a person kills another human, then this person should be punished for manslaughter.” In Experiments 1 and 2 legal conditionals were presented to participants together with exculpatory circumstances, i.e., counterexamples. The participants’ task was to decide whether they would adhere to the legal conditional rule and punish the offender. Participants were either lawyers (i.e., advanced law students and graduate lawyers) or legal laypeople. We found that laypeople often ignore exculpatory circumstances and adhere to the conditional rule when offences evoked high levels of moral outrage. Lawyers did not show this effect. In Experiment 3 laypeople showed difficulties even when asked to simply imagine exculpatory circumstances for highly morally outrageous offences. Results provide new evidence for the role of emotions – like moral outrage – in the consideration of counterexamples to legal conditionals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-502X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-5946</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13421-015-0574-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26689704</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MYCGAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Attorneys ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Cognitive Psychology ; Crime - psychology ; Criminal liability ; Criminal sentences ; Emotions ; Female ; Humans ; Imprisonment ; Law ; Logic ; Male ; Manslaughter ; Morals ; Philosophy ; Psychology ; Punishment - psychology ; Students ; Studies ; Thinking ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Memory &amp; cognition, 2016-04, Vol.44 (3), p.499-517</ispartof><rights>Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2015</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science &amp; Business Media Apr 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-cc3f1d9b9445b5707cb9741c622fe13fe07f6dbed23a8ab9a0acf79fa1fe90e23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-cc3f1d9b9445b5707cb9741c622fe13fe07f6dbed23a8ab9a0acf79fa1fe90e23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1781552791/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1781552791?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,21394,27924,27925,33611,33612,36060,36061,43733,44363,74221,74895</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26689704$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knauff, Markus</creatorcontrib><title>Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals</title><title>Memory &amp; cognition</title><addtitle>Mem Cogn</addtitle><addtitle>Mem Cognit</addtitle><description>Valid conclusions can be defeated if people can think of conditions that prevent the consequent to occur although the antecedent is given. The goal of the present research was to investigate how people consider these conditions when reasoning with legal conditionals such as “If a person kills another human, then this person should be punished for manslaughter.” In Experiments 1 and 2 legal conditionals were presented to participants together with exculpatory circumstances, i.e., counterexamples. The participants’ task was to decide whether they would adhere to the legal conditional rule and punish the offender. Participants were either lawyers (i.e., advanced law students and graduate lawyers) or legal laypeople. We found that laypeople often ignore exculpatory circumstances and adhere to the conditional rule when offences evoked high levels of moral outrage. Lawyers did not show this effect. In Experiment 3 laypeople showed difficulties even when asked to simply imagine exculpatory circumstances for highly morally outrageous offences. Results provide new evidence for the role of emotions – like moral outrage – in the consideration of counterexamples to legal conditionals.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Crime - psychology</subject><subject>Criminal liability</subject><subject>Criminal sentences</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imprisonment</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manslaughter</subject><subject>Morals</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Punishment - psychology</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Thinking</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0090-502X</issn><issn>1532-5946</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMo7vrxA7xIwYsHo5M0aZqjrJ-w4EXBW0jTydql265Ni_jvzdJVRPA0A_PMO8NDyAmDy1TJ_CqwVHBGgUkKUgmqdsiUyZRTqUW2S6YAGqgE_johByEsAUBKne2TCc-yXCsQU3Jxgx5tqIoaky42bVM1i-Sj6t-SGhe2TlzblFVftY2twxHZ87Hg8bYekpe72-fZA50_3T_OrufUCSZ76lzqWakLLYQspALlCq0EcxnnHlnqEZTPygJLntrcFtqCdV5pb5lHDcjTQ3I-5q679n3A0JtVFRzWtW2wHYJhSimdAxMQ0bM_6LIdus2zkcqZlFxpFik2Uq5rQ-jQm3VXrWz3aRiYjUozqjRRpdmoNCrunG6Th2KF5c_Gt7sI8BEIcdQssPt1-t_ULyhmfd4</recordid><startdate>20160401</startdate><enddate>20160401</enddate><creator>Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania</creator><creator>Knauff, Markus</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160401</creationdate><title>Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals</title><author>Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania ; Knauff, Markus</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-cc3f1d9b9445b5707cb9741c622fe13fe07f6dbed23a8ab9a0acf79fa1fe90e23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Crime - psychology</topic><topic>Criminal liability</topic><topic>Criminal sentences</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imprisonment</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manslaughter</topic><topic>Morals</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Punishment - psychology</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Thinking</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knauff, Markus</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Memory &amp; cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gazzo Castañeda, Lupita Estefania</au><au>Knauff, Markus</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals</atitle><jtitle>Memory &amp; cognition</jtitle><stitle>Mem Cogn</stitle><addtitle>Mem Cognit</addtitle><date>2016-04-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>499</spage><epage>517</epage><pages>499-517</pages><issn>0090-502X</issn><eissn>1532-5946</eissn><coden>MYCGAO</coden><abstract>Valid conclusions can be defeated if people can think of conditions that prevent the consequent to occur although the antecedent is given. The goal of the present research was to investigate how people consider these conditions when reasoning with legal conditionals such as “If a person kills another human, then this person should be punished for manslaughter.” In Experiments 1 and 2 legal conditionals were presented to participants together with exculpatory circumstances, i.e., counterexamples. The participants’ task was to decide whether they would adhere to the legal conditional rule and punish the offender. Participants were either lawyers (i.e., advanced law students and graduate lawyers) or legal laypeople. We found that laypeople often ignore exculpatory circumstances and adhere to the conditional rule when offences evoked high levels of moral outrage. Lawyers did not show this effect. In Experiment 3 laypeople showed difficulties even when asked to simply imagine exculpatory circumstances for highly morally outrageous offences. Results provide new evidence for the role of emotions – like moral outrage – in the consideration of counterexamples to legal conditionals.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>26689704</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13421-015-0574-7</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-502X
ispartof Memory & cognition, 2016-04, Vol.44 (3), p.499-517
issn 0090-502X
1532-5946
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1777980140
source Business Source Ultimate; Social Science Premium Collection; ABI/INFORM Global; Springer Nature
subjects Adult
Attorneys
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Crime - psychology
Criminal liability
Criminal sentences
Emotions
Female
Humans
Imprisonment
Law
Logic
Male
Manslaughter
Morals
Philosophy
Psychology
Punishment - psychology
Students
Studies
Thinking
Young Adult
title Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T17%3A17%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Defeasible%20reasoning%20with%20legal%20conditionals&rft.jtitle=Memory%20&%20cognition&rft.au=Gazzo%20Casta%C3%B1eda,%20Lupita%20Estefania&rft.date=2016-04-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=499&rft.epage=517&rft.pages=499-517&rft.issn=0090-502X&rft.eissn=1532-5946&rft.coden=MYCGAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13421-015-0574-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1777980140%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-cc3f1d9b9445b5707cb9741c622fe13fe07f6dbed23a8ab9a0acf79fa1fe90e23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781552791&rft_id=info:pmid/26689704&rfr_iscdi=true