Ethical Embodiment and Moral Reasoning: A Challenge to Peter Singer

This paper addresses Peter Singer's claim that cognitive ability can function as a universal criterion for measuring moral worth. I argue that Singer fails to adequately represent cognitive capacity as the object of moral knowledge at stake in his theory. He thus fails to put forth credible knowledge claims, which undermines both the trustworthiness of his moral theories and the morality of the actions called for by these theories. I situate Singer's methods within feminist critiques of moral reasoning and moral epistemology, and argue that Singer's methods are problematic for moral reasoning because they abstract from their object valuable contextual features. I further develop this claim by showing the importance of embodiment for the construal of objects of moral knowledge. Finally, I develop the moral and scholarly implications of this critique. By showing that the abstract, universal methods of reasoning Singer employs cannot credibly construe the objects of ethical inquiry, I call into question the validity of these methods as a means to moral knowledge in general. Furthermore, since moral reasoning takes place within an embodied moral landscape, it is itself a moral enterprise. Singer's moral reasoning, and ours, must be held accountable for its knowledge claims as well as its concrete effects in the world.     

Tell Me What I Wanted to Hear: Confirmation Effect in Lay Evaluations of Financial Expert Authority

In real life, people engage in interactive decision processes by consulting with experts. However, before taking advice, they must recognise the authority of an expert to assess the quality of the advice. The main goal of this research was to investigate how the confirmation effect affects lay evaluations of the epistemic authority of financial experts. Experiment 1 showed that lay people tend to ascribe greater epistemic authority to those experts whose advice confirms people's opinions, both measured and manipulated. Experiment 2 revealed that when participants' own opinions are not salient, people tend to evaluate experts' authority as higher when their advice confirms social norms. In Experiment 3 we jointly investigated the effects of participants' own opinions and social norms on the evaluations of authority. When both sources of expertise were made salient, decision‐makers favoured advice confirming their own beliefs and used it to evaluate experts' authority. Three interpretations of the role confirmation plays in the experts' authority evaluations are proposed: (1) self‐defensive strategies; (2) processing fluency; and (3) psychological consequences of naïve realism. The paper discusses practical implications of the results. We propose that increasing consumers' knowledge about biases might protect their evaluations of financial advice from being susceptible to the confirmation effect.     

A case study of expert judgment: Economists' probabilities versus base-rate model forecasts

In this case study of economists' forecasts concerning economic downturn, we examine key issues concerning the psychology of prediction and the controversy surrounding the value of expertise in forecasting. We examine when experts' knowledge promotes forecast accuracy and whether biases found in psychological studies (including underutilization of relevant base rates and tendencies to extreme prediction) occur in these economic forecasts. Experts' forecasts were compared to forecasts derived from base-rate models that relied on the historical frequencies of economic downturns. The performance patterns of the experts and models crossed over the forecast horizon. Experts outperformed models in shorter-term forecasting, whereas models outperformed experts in longer-term forecasting. These results highlight the abilities and limits of experts and models in prediction and the sources of their inaccuracy.     

Maternal conceptions of the parenting role and mother–child collaborative behaviours in at-risk context

This study investigated to what extent mothers' conceptions of the parenting role drive mother–child collaborative behaviour as well as expert ratings on maternal practices. It also investigated whether there is any direct link between mother and child behaviours and expert ratings. Self-report measures for maternal conceptions and observed mother–child behaviours in the shopping task were obtained from a sample of 75 at-risk mothers with a child 8 to 12 years old. Social workers reported on mothers' negligent, coercive and resilient practices. Structural equation models showed that high power conception had a negative influence on mother and child's collaborative efforts, whereas reciprocity and parental support conceptions had a positive influence. Reciprocity, low power and parental support schemas consistently predicted experts' view on maternal practices. However, only mother's passivity predicted negatively expert ratings on resilient practice, indicating that expert views were mostly derived from mothers' reflections on their parenting role. Results suggested ways for improving experts' assessment of parental capacities and the use of intervention programmes to promote mothers' positive conceptions and actions.     

Pretense,Counterfactuals, and Bayesian Causal Models: Why What Is Not Real Really Matters

Young children spend a large portion of their time pretending about non‐real situations. Why? We answer this question by using the framework of Bayesian causal models to argue that pretending and counterfactual reasoning engage the same component cognitive abilities: disengaging with current reality, making inferences about an alternative representation of reality, and keeping this representation separate from reality. In turn, according to causal models accounts, counterfactual reasoning is a crucial tool that children need to plan for the future and learn about the world. Both planning with causal models and learning about them require the ability to create false premises and generate conclusions from these premises. We argue that pretending allows children to practice these important cognitive skills. We also consider the prevalence of unrealistic scenarios in children's play and explain how they can be useful in learning, despite appearances to the contrary.     

A demonstration of the costs and benefits of expertise in recognition memory

In their area of expertise experts know more potentially interfering facts than nonexperts do, yet their memory IS superior to that of nonexperts. This has been termed the “paradox of interference.” We proposed that the ability of experts to go beyond the information given allows them to infer the presence of items that might not otherwise be remembered. However, such inferences can also be detrimental to accurate recognition memory in that such inferences might become confused with actual targets. We examined the benefits and costs of expertise in two recognition memory experiments In which experts and nonexperts participated. Experts in Ex-penment 1 were knowledgeable about baseball; those in Experiment 2 were knowledgeable about Ohio geography. Distractors in both studies bore a synonymous, an inferential, or no special relation to the targets. In the last instance, experts had recognition memory superior to that of the nonexperts. When the distractors were related to the targets, however, the non-experts were superior. We proposed that experts' inferential behavior is a contributor to their generally superior memory, but that task demands can convert this asset into a liability.     

Religious authority and the transmission of abstract god concepts

According to the Standard Model account of religion, religious concepts tend to conform to “minimally counterintuitive” schemas. Laypeople may, to varying degrees, verbally endorse the abstract doctrines taught by professional theologians. But, outside the Sunday school exam room, the implicit representations that tend to guide people’s everyday thinking, feeling, and behavior are about minimally counterintuitive entities. According to the Standard Model, these implicit representations are the essential thing to be explained by the cognitive science of religion (CSR). It is argued here that this theoretical orientation of mainstream CSR misses a whole dimension of religiosity—the acceptance of certain religious authorities, that is, the acceptance of other people’s superior expertise. Average believers (especially in doctrinal traditions) tend to accept the authority of religious experts who espouse highly counterintuitive ideas that they (the laypeople) understand in a distorted form, if at all. These highly counterintuitive ideas are culturally successful because laypeople see them as being justified by people they have reason to regard as epistemic authorities. The tendency for people to endorse (without fully understanding) highly counterintuitive religious ideas espoused by intellectuals may explain parallels in the development of separate traditions (e.g., Judaism and Hinduism), as religious philosophers follow parallel lines of reasoning.     

The Case for Rules in Reasoning

A number of theoretical positions in psychology—including variants of case-based reasoning, instance-based analogy, and connectionist models—maintain that abstract rules are not involved in human reasoning, or at best play a minor role. Other views hold that the use of abstract rules is a core aspect of human reasoning. We propose eight criteria for determining whether or not people use abstract rules in reasoning, and examine evidence relevant to each criterion for several rule systems. We argue that there is substantial evidence that several different inferential rules, including modus ponens, contractual rules, causal rules, and the law of large numbers, are used in solving everyday problems. We discuss the implications for various theoretical positions and consider hybrid mechanisms that combine aspects of instance and rule models.     

Evoking the permission schema: The impact of explicit negation and a violation-checking context

Cheng and Holyoak (1985) proposed that realistic reasoning in deontic contexts is based on pragmatic schemas such as those for assessing compliance with or violation of permission and obligation rules, and that the evocation of these schemas can facilitate performance in Wason's (1966) selection task. The inferential rules in such schemas are intermediate in generality between the content-independent rules proposed by logicians and specific cases stored in memory. In one test of their theory, Cheng and Holyoak demonstrated that facilitation could be obtained even for an abstract permission rule that is devoid of concrete thematic content. Jackson and Griggs (1990) argued on the basis of several experiments that such facilitation is not due to evocation of a permission schema, but, rather, results from a combination of presentation factors: the presence of explicit negatives in the statement of cases and the presence of a violation-checking context. Their conclusion calls into question both the generality of content effects in reasoning and the explanation of these effects. We note that Jackson and Griggs did not test whether the same combination of presentation factors would produce facilitation for an arbitrary rule that does not involve deontic concepts, as their proposal would predict. The present study tested this prediction. Moreover, we extended Jackson and Griggs' comparisons between performance with an abstract permission rule versus an arbitrary rule, introducing clarifications in the statement of each. No facilitation was observed for an arbitrary rule even when explicit negatives and a violation-checking context were used, whereas strong facilitation was found for the abstract permission rule under the same conditions. Performance on the arbitrary rule was not improved even when the instructions indicated that the rule was conditional rather than biconditional. In contrast, a small but reliable degree of facilitation was obtained for the abstract permission rule, with violation-checking content even in the absence of explicit negatives. The theory of pragmatic reasoning schemas can account for both the present findings and those reported by Jackson and Griggs.     

Reconnecting interpretation to reasoning through individual differences

Computational theories of mind assume that participants interpret information and then reason from those interpretations. Research on interpretation in deductive reasoning has claimed to show that subjects' interpretation of single syllogistic premises in an “immediate inference” task is radically different from their interpretation of pairs of the same premises in syllogistic reasoning tasks (Newstead, 1989, 1995; Roberts, Newstead, & Griggs, 2001). Narrow appeal to particular Gricean implicatures in this work fails to bridge the gap. Grice's theory taken as a broad framework for credulous discourse processing in which participants construct speakers' “intended models” of discourses can reconcile these results, purchasing continuity of interpretation through variety of logical treatments. We present exploratory experimental data on immediate inference and subsequent syllogistic reasoning. Systematic patterns of interpretation driven by two factors (whether the subject's model of the discourse is credulous, and their degree of reliance on information packaging) are shown to transcend particular quantifier inferences and to drive systematic differences in subjects' subsequent syllogistic reasoning. We conclude that most participants do not understand deductive tasks as experimenters intend, and just as there is no single logical model of reasoning, so there is no reason to expect a single “fundamental human reasoning mechanism”.     

An Examination of the Validity and Incremental Value of Needed‐at‐Entry Ratings for a Customer Service Job

We examined needed‐at‐entry ratings of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) provided by job experts (N= 285) during a job analysis for a customer service manager position. To serve as an external referent, a group of industrial and organisational psychologists (N= 31) rated the perceived trainability of each KSAO. Analyses revealed only limited support for the validity of inferences drawn from job experts' needed‐at‐entry ratings. Consistent with our hypotheses, less validity evidence was found for ratings of the more person‐oriented and abstract “AO” attributes than for the more job‐oriented and concrete “KS” attributes. In general, job experts tended to rate attributes as needed‐at‐entry that psychologists thought could be developed on the job. We also found that failing to collect needed‐at‐entry ratings, and relying on only the more common importance‐to‐the‐job ratings, would have resulted in a rather different set of critical KSAOs identified for assessment during the selection process.     

Expert Judgement and Expert Disagreement

As Hammond has argued, traditional explanations for disagreement among experts (incompetence, venality, and ideology) are inadequate. The character and fallibilities of the human judgement process itself lead to persistent disagreements even among competent, honest, and disinterested experts. Social Judgement Theory provides powerful methods for analysing such judgementally based disagreements when the experts' judgement processes can be represented by additive models involving the same cues. However, the validity and usefulness of such representations depend on several conditions: (a) experts must agree on a problem definition, (b) experts must have access to the same information, and (c) experts must use the same organising principles. When these conditions are not met, methods for diagnosing and treating disagreement are poorly understood. As a start towards developing such an understanding, sources of expert disagreement are discussed and categorised.     

Imagery experts: How do expert abacus operators process imagery?

This study examined how expert abacus operators process imagery. Without imagery instructions a digit series was auditorily presented as one whole number (WHL list) or separate digits (SEP list). RT from offset of the probe to onset of the response was measured. The main findings were as follows: experts showed no difference in RT between the two lists, while significant differences occurred in non-experts; non-experts' RT increased with probed position, while experts' RT was flat if the series size was within their image capacity; experts' RT increased with probed position when the series size was longer than their image capacity, but its rate of increase was smaller than that of non-experts; and the smaller the image capacity, the steeper the slope of the RT function. It was concluded that experts spontaneously encode the digit series into an imaged abacus, while non-experts encode it verbally; that experts directly access the probed position within their image but serially process the verbally coded overflowed part; and that non-experts search the digit series serially.     

What causal conditional reasoning tells us about people's understanding of causality

Causal conditional reasoning means reasoning from a conditional statement that refers to causal content. We argue that data from causal conditional reasoning tasks tell us something not only about how people interpret conditionals, but also about how they interpret causal relations. In particular, three basic principles of people's causal understanding emerge from previous studies: the modal principle, the exhaustive principle, and the equivalence principle. Restricted to the four classic conditional inferences—Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Denial of the Antecedent, and Affirmation of the Consequent—causal conditional reasoning data are only partially able to support these principles. We present three experiments that use concrete and abstract causal scenarios and combine inference tasks with a new type of task in which people reformulate a given causal situation. The results provide evidence for the proposed representational principles. Implications for theories of the naïve understanding of causality are discussed.     

A Hierarchical Multiple-Level Approach to the Assessment of Interpersonal Relatedness and Self-Definition: Implications for Research,Clinical Practice,and DSM Planning

Extant research suggests there is considerable overlap between so-called 2-polarities models of personality development; that is, models that propose that personality development evolves through a dialectic synergistic interaction between 2 key developmental tasks across the life span—the development of self-definition on the one hand and of relatedness on the other. These models have attracted considerable research attention and play a central role in DSM planning. This article provides a researcher- and clinician-friendly guide to the assessment of these personality theories. We argue that current theoretical models focus on issues of relatedness and self-definition at different hierarchically organized levels of analysis; that is (a) at the level of broad personality features, (b) at the motivational level (i.e., the motivational processes underlying the development of these dimensions), and (c) at the level of underlying internal working models or cognitive affective schemas, and the specific interpersonal features and problems in which they are expressed. Implications for further research and DSM planning are outlined.     

On the Interaction of Theory and Data in Concept Learning

Standard models of concept learning generally focus on deriving statistical properties of a category based on data (i.e., category members and the features that describe them) but fail to give appropriate weight to the contact between people's intuitive theories and these data. Two experiments explored the role of people's prior knowledge or intuitive theories on category learning by manipulating the labels associated with the category. Learning differed dramatically when categories of children's drawings were meaningfully labeled (e.g., “done by creative children”) compared to when they were labeled in a neutral manner. When categories are meaningfully labeled, people bring intuitive theories to the learning context. Learning then involves a process in which people search for evidence in the data that supports abstract features or hypotheses that have been activated by the intuitive theories. In contrast, when categories are labeled in a neutral manner, people search for simple features that distinguish one category from another. Importantly, the final study suggests that learning involves an interaction of people's intuitive theories with data, in which theories and data mutually influence each other. The results strongly suggest that straight-forward, relatively modular ways of incorporating prior knowledge into models of category learning are inadequate. More telling, the results suggest that standard models may have fundamental limitations. We outline a speculative model of learning in which the interaction of theory and data is tightly coupled. The article concludes by comparing the results to recent artificial intelligence systems that use prior knowledge during learning.     

Deductive schemas with uncertain premises using qualitative probability expressions

The new paradigm in the psychology of reasoning redirects the investigation of deduction conceptually and methodologically because the premises and the conclusion of the inferences are assumed to be uncertain. A probabilistic counterpart of the concept of logical validity and a method to assess whether individuals comply with it must be defined. Conceptually, we used de Finetti's coherence as a normative framework to assess individuals' performance. Methodologically, we presented inference schemas whose premises had various levels of probability that contained non-numerical expressions (e.g., “the chances are high”) and, as a control, sure levels. Depending on the inference schemas, from 60% to 80% of the participants produced coherent conclusions when the premises were uncertain. The data also show that (1) except for schemas involving conjunction, performance was consistently lower with certain than uncertain premises, (2) the rate of conjunction fallacy was consistently low (not exceeding 20%, even with sure premises), and (3) participants' interpretation of the conditional agreed with de Finetti's “conditional event” but not with the material conditional.     

Pragmatic reasoning schemas

We propose that people typically reason about realistic situations using neither content-free syntactic inference rules nor representations of specific experiences. Rather, people reason using knowledge structures that we term pragmatic reasoning schemas, which are generalized sets of rules defined in relation to classes of goals. Three experiments examined the impact of a “permission schema” on deductive reasoning. Experiment 1 demonstrated that by evoking the permission schema it is possible to facilitate performance in Wason's selection paradigm for subjects who have had no experience with the specific content of the problems. Experiment 2 showed that a selection problem worded in terms of an abstract permission elicited better performance than one worded in terms of a concrete but arbitrary situation, providing evidence for an abstract permission schema that is free of domain-specific content. Experiment 3 provided evidence that evocation of a permission schema affects not only tasks requiring procedural knowledge, but also a linguistic rephrasing task requiring declarative knowledge. In particular, statements in the form if p then q were rephrased into the form p only if q with greater frequency for permission than for arbitrary statements, and rephrasings of permission statements produced a pattern of introduction of modals (must, can) totally unlike that observed for arbitrary conditional statements. Other pragmatic schemas, such as “causal” and “evidence” schemas can account for both linguistic and reasoning phenomena that alternative hypotheses fail to explain.