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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cognition 2017-10, Vol.167, p.25-37
Hauptverfasser: Bear, Adam, Knobe, Joshua
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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