Harry Potter and the sorcerer's scope: Latent scope biases in explanatory reasoning

60Citations
Citations of this article
98Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

What makes a good explanation? We examine the function of latent scope, i.e., the number of unobserved phenomena that an explanation can account for. We show that individuals prefer narrow latent scope explanations-those that account for fewer unobserved effects-to broader explanations. In Experiments 1a-d, participants found narrow latent scope explanations to be both more satisfying and more likely. In Experiment 2 we directly manipulated base rate information and again found a preference for narrow latent scope explanations. Participants in Experiment 3 evaluated more natural explanations of unexpected observations, and again displayed a bias for narrow latent scope explanations. We conclude by considering what this novel bias tells us about how humans evaluate explanations and engage in causal reasoning. © Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010.

References Powered by Scopus

Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk

3647Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Explanation and understanding

480Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Simplicity and probability in causal explanation

313Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Explanatory Preferences Shape Learning and Inference

150Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

130Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Explanation and prior knowledge interact to guide learning

87Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Khemlani, S. S., Sussman, A. B., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2011). Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s scope: Latent scope biases in explanatory reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0028-1

Readers over time

‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25015304560

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 48

65%

Researcher 13

18%

Professor / Associate Prof. 8

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 40

68%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7

12%

Computer Science 6

10%

Arts and Humanities 6

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0