Structure-function fit underlies the evaluation of teleological explanations

被引:19
作者
Liquin, Emily G. [1 ]
Lombrozo, Tania [1 ]
机构
[1] Princeton Univ, Dept Psychol, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA
关键词
Explanation; Teleology; Causal reasoning; SIMPLICITY; CHILDREN; DESIGN; PROBABILITY; ARTIFACTS; ILLUSION; BELIEFS; PREFER;
D O I
10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.09.001
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Teleological explanations, which appeal to a function or purpose (e.g., "kangaroos have long tails for balance"), seem to play a special role within the biological domain. We propose that such explanations are compelling because they are evaluated on the basis of a salient cue: structure function fit, or the correspondence between a biological feature's form (e.g., tail length) and its function (e.g., balance). Across five studies with 852 participants in total, we find support for three predictions that follow from this proposal. First, we find that function information decreases reliance on mechanistic considerations when evaluating explanations (Experiments 1-3), indicating the presence of a salient, function-based cue. Second, we demonstrate that structure function fit is the best candidate for this cue (Experiments 3-4). Third, we show that scientifically-unwarranted teleological explanations are more likely to be accepted under speeded and unspeeded conditions when they are high in structure-function fit (Experiment 5). Experiment 5 also finds that structure-function fit extends beyond biology to teleological explanations in other domains. Jointly, these studies provide a new account of how teleological explanations are evaluated and why they are often (but not universally) compelling.
引用
收藏
页码:22 / 43
页数:22
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]   Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts?: the role of causal status in determining feature centrality [J].
Ahn, WK .
COGNITION, 1998, 69 (02) :135-178
[2]  
Allen C., 2009, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS
[3]   Missing the Trees for the Forest: A Construal Level Account of the Illusion of Explanatory Depth [J].
Alter, Adam L. ;
Oppenheimer, Daniel M. ;
Zemla, Jeffrey C. .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 99 (03) :436-451
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1976, TELEOLOGICAL EXPLANA, DOI DOI 10.1525/9780520333697
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2009, OXFORD HDB PHILOS MI
[6]   Darwin"s greatest discovery: Design without designer [J].
Ayala, Francisco J. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2007, 104 :8567-8573
[7]   The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression [J].
Azen, R ;
Budescu, DV .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2003, 8 (02) :129-148
[8]  
Barnes M.E., 2017, EVOL EDUC OUTREACH, V10, P7, DOI DOI 10.1186/s12052-017-0070-6
[9]   Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk [J].
Berinsky, Adam J. ;
Huber, Gregory A. ;
Lenz, Gabriel S. .
POLITICAL ANALYSIS, 2012, 20 (03) :351-368
[10]   Occam's Rattle: Children's Use of Simplicity and Probability to Constrain Inference [J].
Bonawitz, Elizabeth Baraff ;
Lombrozo, Tania .
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2012, 48 (04) :1156-1164