Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive
•Representations of normality are central to many aspects of cognition.•Four studies explored the factors that influence normality representations.•Both descriptive and prescriptive judgments influenced normality representations. People’s beliefs about normality play an important role in many aspect...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cognition 2017-10, Vol.167, p.25-37 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 37 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 25 |
container_title | Cognition |
container_volume | 167 |
creator | Bear, Adam Knobe, Joshua |
description | •Representations of normality are central to many aspects of cognition.•Four studies explored the factors that influence normality representations.•Both descriptive and prescriptive judgments influenced normality representations.
People’s beliefs about normality play an important role in many aspects of cognition and life (e.g., causal cognition, linguistic semantics, cooperative behavior). But how do people determine what sorts of things are normal in the first place? Past research has studied both people’s representations of statistical norms (e.g., the average) and their representations of prescriptive norms (e.g., the ideal). Four studies suggest that people’s notion of normality incorporates both of these types of norms. In particular, people’s representations of what is normal were found to be influenced both by what they believed to be descriptively average and by what they believed to be prescriptively ideal. This is shown across three domains: people’s use of the word “normal” (Study 1), their use of gradable adjectives (Study 2), and their judgments of concept prototypicality (Study 3). A final study investigated the learning of normality for a novel category, showing that people actively combine statistical and prescriptive information they have learned into an undifferentiated notion of what is normal (Study 4). Taken together, these findings may help to explain how moral norms impact the acquisition of normality and, conversely, how normality impacts the acquisition of moral norms. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.024 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1839738873</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010027716302645</els_id><sourcerecordid>2021992513</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-becaddccf9d55b13beb28cd820c5ec0a6bd117db1b486b421a97113cc01aab8b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkF1LwzAUhoMobk7_gg688cLWnLRdUu_G8AuGeqHXIV-TlK6pSTvYvzdlU8Ebb5Lw5jnnJA9CF4BTwDC7qVLlPhrbWdekJAYxTTHJD9AYGM0SyjJ2iMYYA04woXSETkKoMMY5oewYjeIaT5iMUfrs_FrUttveTl-F76baBOVt29mNuZ62Q9L63-gUHa1EHczZfp-g9_u7t8Vjsnx5eFrMl4nKc9Yl0iihtVKrUheFhEwaSZjSjGBVGIXFTGoAqiXInM1kTkCUFCBTCoMQkslsgq52fVvvPnsTOr62QZm6Fo1xfeDAspJmLP41opd_0Mr1vomv4wQTKEtSwEDRHaW8C8GbFW-9XQu_5YD5oJRX_EcpH5QOF1FprDzf9-_l2uifum-HEZjvABOFbKzxPChrGmW09UZ1XDv775Av5iOL5A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2021992513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Bear, Adam ; Knobe, Joshua</creator><creatorcontrib>Bear, Adam ; Knobe, Joshua</creatorcontrib><description>•Representations of normality are central to many aspects of cognition.•Four studies explored the factors that influence normality representations.•Both descriptive and prescriptive judgments influenced normality representations.
People’s beliefs about normality play an important role in many aspects of cognition and life (e.g., causal cognition, linguistic semantics, cooperative behavior). But how do people determine what sorts of things are normal in the first place? Past research has studied both people’s representations of statistical norms (e.g., the average) and their representations of prescriptive norms (e.g., the ideal). Four studies suggest that people’s notion of normality incorporates both of these types of norms. In particular, people’s representations of what is normal were found to be influenced both by what they believed to be descriptively average and by what they believed to be prescriptively ideal. This is shown across three domains: people’s use of the word “normal” (Study 1), their use of gradable adjectives (Study 2), and their judgments of concept prototypicality (Study 3). A final study investigated the learning of normality for a novel category, showing that people actively combine statistical and prescriptive information they have learned into an undifferentiated notion of what is normal (Study 4). Taken together, these findings may help to explain how moral norms impact the acquisition of normality and, conversely, how normality impacts the acquisition of moral norms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.024</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27842702</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Averages ; Belief & doubt ; Cognition ; Concepts ; Cooperation ; Learning ; Morality ; Normality ; Semantics ; Statistics</subject><ispartof>Cognition, 2017-10, Vol.167, p.25-37</ispartof><rights>2016</rights><rights>Published by Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Oct 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-becaddccf9d55b13beb28cd820c5ec0a6bd117db1b486b421a97113cc01aab8b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-becaddccf9d55b13beb28cd820c5ec0a6bd117db1b486b421a97113cc01aab8b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.024$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842702$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bear, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knobe, Joshua</creatorcontrib><title>Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive</title><title>Cognition</title><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><description>•Representations of normality are central to many aspects of cognition.•Four studies explored the factors that influence normality representations.•Both descriptive and prescriptive judgments influenced normality representations.
People’s beliefs about normality play an important role in many aspects of cognition and life (e.g., causal cognition, linguistic semantics, cooperative behavior). But how do people determine what sorts of things are normal in the first place? Past research has studied both people’s representations of statistical norms (e.g., the average) and their representations of prescriptive norms (e.g., the ideal). Four studies suggest that people’s notion of normality incorporates both of these types of norms. In particular, people’s representations of what is normal were found to be influenced both by what they believed to be descriptively average and by what they believed to be prescriptively ideal. This is shown across three domains: people’s use of the word “normal” (Study 1), their use of gradable adjectives (Study 2), and their judgments of concept prototypicality (Study 3). A final study investigated the learning of normality for a novel category, showing that people actively combine statistical and prescriptive information they have learned into an undifferentiated notion of what is normal (Study 4). Taken together, these findings may help to explain how moral norms impact the acquisition of normality and, conversely, how normality impacts the acquisition of moral norms.</description><subject>Averages</subject><subject>Belief & doubt</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Concepts</subject><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Normality</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><issn>0010-0277</issn><issn>1873-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkF1LwzAUhoMobk7_gg688cLWnLRdUu_G8AuGeqHXIV-TlK6pSTvYvzdlU8Ebb5Lw5jnnJA9CF4BTwDC7qVLlPhrbWdekJAYxTTHJD9AYGM0SyjJ2iMYYA04woXSETkKoMMY5oewYjeIaT5iMUfrs_FrUttveTl-F76baBOVt29mNuZ62Q9L63-gUHa1EHczZfp-g9_u7t8Vjsnx5eFrMl4nKc9Yl0iihtVKrUheFhEwaSZjSjGBVGIXFTGoAqiXInM1kTkCUFCBTCoMQkslsgq52fVvvPnsTOr62QZm6Fo1xfeDAspJmLP41opd_0Mr1vomv4wQTKEtSwEDRHaW8C8GbFW-9XQu_5YD5oJRX_EcpH5QOF1FprDzf9-_l2uifum-HEZjvABOFbKzxPChrGmW09UZ1XDv775Av5iOL5A</recordid><startdate>201710</startdate><enddate>201710</enddate><creator>Bear, Adam</creator><creator>Knobe, Joshua</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201710</creationdate><title>Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive</title><author>Bear, Adam ; Knobe, Joshua</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-becaddccf9d55b13beb28cd820c5ec0a6bd117db1b486b421a97113cc01aab8b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Averages</topic><topic>Belief & doubt</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Concepts</topic><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Normality</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bear, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knobe, Joshua</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bear, Adam</au><au>Knobe, Joshua</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive</atitle><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><date>2017-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>167</volume><spage>25</spage><epage>37</epage><pages>25-37</pages><issn>0010-0277</issn><eissn>1873-7838</eissn><abstract>•Representations of normality are central to many aspects of cognition.•Four studies explored the factors that influence normality representations.•Both descriptive and prescriptive judgments influenced normality representations.
People’s beliefs about normality play an important role in many aspects of cognition and life (e.g., causal cognition, linguistic semantics, cooperative behavior). But how do people determine what sorts of things are normal in the first place? Past research has studied both people’s representations of statistical norms (e.g., the average) and their representations of prescriptive norms (e.g., the ideal). Four studies suggest that people’s notion of normality incorporates both of these types of norms. In particular, people’s representations of what is normal were found to be influenced both by what they believed to be descriptively average and by what they believed to be prescriptively ideal. This is shown across three domains: people’s use of the word “normal” (Study 1), their use of gradable adjectives (Study 2), and their judgments of concept prototypicality (Study 3). A final study investigated the learning of normality for a novel category, showing that people actively combine statistical and prescriptive information they have learned into an undifferentiated notion of what is normal (Study 4). Taken together, these findings may help to explain how moral norms impact the acquisition of normality and, conversely, how normality impacts the acquisition of moral norms.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>27842702</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.024</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-0277 |
ispartof | Cognition, 2017-10, Vol.167, p.25-37 |
issn | 0010-0277 1873-7838 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1839738873 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Averages Belief & doubt Cognition Concepts Cooperation Learning Morality Normality Semantics Statistics |
title | Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T06%3A33%3A47IST&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=Normality:%20Part%20descriptive,%20part%20prescriptive&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.au=Bear,%20Adam&rft.date=2017-10&rft.volume=167&rft.spage=25&rft.epage=37&rft.pages=25-37&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.eissn=1873-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.024&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2021992513%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2021992513&rft_id=info:pmid/27842702&rft_els_id=S0010027716302645&rfr_iscdi=true |