| Title |
Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-015-0574-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lupita Estefania Gazzo Castañeda, Markus Knauff |
| 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. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 41% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,302
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#947
of 1,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,396
of 389,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.