Advertisement

Cognitive Processing

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 227–249 | Cite as

Background shifts affect explanatory style: how a pragmatic theory of explanation accounts for background effects in the generation of explanations

  • Seth Chin-ParkerEmail author
  • Alexandra Bradner
Research Report

Abstract

Cognitive scientists are interested in explanation because it provides a window into the cognition that underlies one’s understanding of the world. We argue that the study of explanation has tended to focus on what makes an explanation “bona fide” as opposed to the processes involved in how the explanation is generated. In the current study, we asked participants to respond to the request for an explanation within a novel domain after we manipulated their initial exposure to the domain, and thus the background of the request. In two experiments, we found evidence that the background shaped participants’ interpretations of the prompt for the explanation and that this, in turn, influenced whether they used a causal or functional style of explanation when responding to the prompt. We also asked participants to evaluate a number of explanations and found that the manipulation of the background did not have the same effect on the evaluative tasks. Our data support a pragmatic approach (e.g. The scientific image. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980) to the study of explanation generation, a philosophical approach which argues that the background influences the interpretation of the question, the development of a relevance relation which connects the question and explanation, and the identification of some set of candidate answers. We also suggest there is an important difference between the process of generating an explanation and evaluating an explanation, a difference that has escaped the attention of cognitive scientists thus far.

Keywords

Explanation generation Cognition Pragmatics of explanation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

A Denison University Research Foundation grant awarded to the two authors supported this study. We thank Tania Lombrozo and the Ross-lab group at UIUC for sharing some excellent thoughts and suggestions. We are especially indebted to David Landy for his insightful and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Jessie Birdwhistell and Katie Dahm were invaluable in collecting the data for this study. Special thanks to Dr. Frank Hassebrock and Dr. Mark Moller for their assistance coding the explanations. Portions of the data used in this paper were included in a talk presented at the 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Washington, D. C., August 2008, and a poster presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology, Philadelphia, PA, July 2008.

References

  1. Achinstein P (1993) The nature of explanation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn WK, Kalish CW, Medin DL, Gelman SA (1995) The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition 54:299–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Atran S (1994) Core domains versus scientific theories: evidence from systematics and Itza-Maya folkbiology. In: Hirschfeld LA, Gelman S (eds) Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 316–340Google Scholar
  4. Bradner A (2005) The end of explanation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradner A, Chin-Parker S (2009) Shifting the burden through empirical study: support for the pragmatic theory of explanation (in preparation)Google Scholar
  6. Chaigneau SE, Barsalou LW, Sloman S (2004) Assessing the causal structure of function. J Exp Psychol Gen 133:601–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng PW, Holyoak KJ (1985) Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cogn Sci 17:391–416Google Scholar
  8. Cheng PW, Novick LR (1992) Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychol Rev 99:365–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen JD, MacWhinney B, Flatt M, Provost J (1993) Psyscope: a new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behav Res Meth Instr Comput 25:257–271Google Scholar
  10. Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72:741–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forbus KD (2001) Exploring analogy in the large. In: Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN (eds) The analogical mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 23–58Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel A (1981) Forms of explanation. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  13. Gick ML, Holyoak KJ (1980) Analogical problem solving. Cogn Psychol 12:306–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glymour C (1998) Learning causes: psychological explanations of causal explanations. Mind Mach 8:39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hale CR, Barsalou LW (1995) Explanation content and construction during system learning and troubleshooting. J Learn Sci 4:385–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinton DJ (1990) Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychol Bull 107:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cogn Sci 13:295–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hummel JE, Holyoak KJ (2003) A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychol Rev 110:220–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Keil FC (2006) Explanation and understanding. Annu Rev Psychol 57:227–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitcher P (1981) Explanatory unification. Philos Sci 48:507–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitcher P, Salmon WC (1987) van Fraassen on explanation. J Philos 84:315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lassaline ME (1996) Structural alignment in induction and similarity. J Exp Psychol Learn 22:754–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leake DB (1991) Goal-based explanation evaluation. Cogn Sci 15:509–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lloyd E, Anderson C (1993) Empiricism, objectivity, and explanation. Midwest Stud Philos 18:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lombrozo T (2006) The structure and function of explanations. Trends Cogn Sci 10:464–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lombrozo T (2007) Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cogn Psychol 55:464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lombrozo T (2009) Explanation and categorization: how “why?” informs “what?”. Cognition 110:248–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lombrozo T, Carey S (2006) Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition 99:167–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Malle BF (2004) How the mind explains behavior: folk explanations, meaning and social interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Medin DL, Coley JD, Storms G, Hayes BK (2003) A relevance theory of induction. Psychon Bull Rev 10:517–532PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy GL, Medin DL (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychol Rev 92:289–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Northcott R (2008) Causation and contrast classes. Philos Stud 139:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Read SJ (1984) Analogical reasoning in social judgment: the importance of causal theories. J Pers Soc Psychol 46:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salmon WC (1989) Four decades of scientific explanation. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  35. Salmon WC (1998a) Causality and explanation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salmon WC (1998b) Statistical explanation and causality. In: Pitt JC (ed) Theories of explanation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 75–118Google Scholar
  37. Shanks DR, Holyoak KJ, Medin DL (eds) (1996) Causal learning. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  38. Sloman SA (1994) When explanations compete: the role of explanatory coherence on judgments of likelihood. Cognition 52:1–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Spellman BA, Holyoak KJ (1996) Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cogn Psychol 31:307–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. van Fraassen BC (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson RA, Keil FC (2000) The shadows and shallows of explanation. In: Keil FC, Wilson RA (eds) Explanation and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 87–114Google Scholar
  42. Wilson D, Sperber D (2004) Relevance theory. In: Horn L, Ward G (eds) The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 607–632Google Scholar
  43. Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical Investigations (trans: Anscombe GEM). Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright L (1973) Functions. Philos Rev 82:139–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDenison UniversityGranvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyDenison UniversityGranvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations