Differences in the Evaluation of Generic Statements About Human and Non-Human Categories

Generic statements (e.g., "Birds lay eggs") express generalizations about categories. Current theories suggest that people should be especially inclined to accept generics that involve threatening information. However, previous tests of this claim have focused on generics about non-human categories, which raises the question of whether this effect applies as readily to human categories. In Experiment 1, adults were more likely to accept generics involving a threatening (vs. a non-threatening) property for artifacts, but this negativity bias did not also apply to human categories. Experiment 2 examined an alternative hypothesis for this result, and Experiments 3 and 4 served as conceptual replications of the first experiment. Experiment 5 found that even preschoolers apply generics differently for humans and artifacts. Finally, Experiment 6 showed that these effects reflect differences between human and non-human categories more generally, as adults showed a negativity bias for categories of non-human animals, but not for categories of humans. These findings suggest the presence of important, early-emerging domain differences in people's judgments about generics.

[1]  J. Boseovski.  Evidence for “Rose‐Colored Glasses”: An Examination of the Positivity Bias in Young Children’s Personality Judgments , 2010 .

[2]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  Children's thinking about traits: implications for judgments of the self and others. , 1998, Child development.

[3]  Sarah-Jane Leslie,et al.  Generics: Cognition and Acquisition , 2008 .

[4]  P. Devine.  Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. , 1989 .

[5]  Andrei Cimpian,et al.  The inherence heuristic across development: Systematic differences between children’s and adults’ explanations for everyday facts , 2014, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  D. Kelemen,et al.  The Human Function Compunction: Teleological explanation in adults , 2009, Cognition.

[7]  Daniel Brickman,et al.  The Influence of Competition on Children's Social Categories , 2011 .

[8]  K. Vohs,et al.  Case Western Reserve University , 1990 .

[9]  Joshua Knobe,et al.  Beliefs About the True Self Explain Asymmetries Based on Moral Judgment , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Francis Jeffry Pelletier,et al.  The Generic book , 1997 .

[11]  E. Markman,et al.  The generic/nongeneric distinction influences how children interpret new information about social others. , 2011, Child development.

[12]  A. Woodward,et al.  Not all emotions are created equal: the negativity bias in social-emotional development. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  Amanda C. Brandone,et al.  Children's Developing Intuitions About the Truth Conditions and Implications of Novel Generics Versus Quantified Statements , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Andrei Cimpian,et al.  Information learned from generic language becomes central to children’s biological concepts: Evidence from their open-ended explanations , 2009, Cognition.

[15]  Gregory Norman Carlson,et al.  Reference to kinds in English , 1977 .

[16]  S. Gelman,et al.  The Essential Child : Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought , 2003 .

[17]  S. Sloman.  The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[18]  Sarah-Jane Leslie,et al.  The Original Sin of Cognition: Fear, Prejudice, and Generalization , 2017 .

[19]  D. Abrams,et al.  Older but wilier: In-group accountability and the development of subjective group dynamics. , 2007, Developmental psychology.

[20]  S. Carey,et al.  Constraints on conceptual development: a case study of the acquisition of folkbiological and folksociological knowledge in Madagascar. , 2004, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[21]  Joshua Knobe,et al.  Value Judgments and the True Self , 2014, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[22]  Amanda C. Brandone,et al.  Generic Statements Require Little Evidence for Acceptance but Have Powerful Implications , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  S. Gelman.  Psychological essentialism in children , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  B. Carpenter,et al.  Think Generic!: The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences , 1999 .

[25]  Andrei Cimpian,et al.  Why are dunkels sticky? Preschoolers infer functionality and intentional creation for artifact properties learned from generic language , 2010, Cognition.

[26]  Marianne G. Taylor,et al.  Mother-child conversations about gender : understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs , 2004 .

[27]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction , 2004 .

[28]  Julian De Freitas,et al.  Deep down my enemy is good: Thinking about the true self reduces intergroup bias , 2018 .

[29]  Nalini Ambady,et al.  Learning (not) to talk about race: when older children underperform in social categorization. , 2008, Developmental psychology.

[30]  Edward B. Royzman,et al.  Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion , 2001 .

[31]  S. Frederick.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[32]  J. Coley,et al.  Not So Fast: Reassessing Gender Essentialism in Young Adults , 2014 .