Conditional Promises and Threats – Cognition and Emotion
Published 24 April 2019
Sieghard Beller
Citations19
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
Abstract
Conditional promises and threats are speech acts that can be used to manipulate the behavior of other persons. Although reasoning studies have been able to reveal some peculiarities of these concepts, the explanation has remained fragmentary. To fill in this gap, a theoretical analysis of conditional inducements is proposed, which integrates cognitive as well as emotional aspects. An experiment – focussing on linguistic, pragmatic, emotional, and deontic consequences – corroborates the analysis and shows that persons have a clear understanding of conditional inducements.
Keywords
Psychology
Emotion And Adaptation
7,589 Citations1991Richard S. Lazarus
CognitionThe logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task
2,475 Citations1989Leda Cosmides
The hypothesis that the human mind includes cognitive processes specialized for reasoning about social exchange predicts the content effects found in these experiments, and parsimoniously explains those that have already been reported in the literature.
Cognition & EmotionAppraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More Accurate and Comprehensive Theory
905 Citations1996Ira J. Roseman
The Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University)On Invited Inferences
324 Citations1971Michael L. Geis, Arnold M. Zvicky
Thinking & ReasoningConditional Reasoning with Realistic Material
97 Citations1997Stephen E. Newstead
CognitionConditional reasoning with inducements and advice
60 Citations1998Julie Evans
The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that this difference arose from the fact that the speaker of an inducement is normally seen to have control over the consequent event whereas the giver of advice does not.
eScholarship (California Digital Library)A Model Theory of Deontic Reasoning About Social Norms
20 Citations2001Sieghard Beller
Advances in psychologyPragmatic Reasoning Schemas for Conditional Promises: Context and Representation
9 Citations1990Henry Markovits, Christiane Lesage
