Conditional reasoning with inducements and advice

In an earlier study of conditional reasoning, Newstead et al. [Newstead, S. E., Ellis, C.E., Evans, J.St.B.T., Dennis, I., (1997). Conditional reasonin g with realistic material. Thinking and Reasoning 3, 49-96] found that peop le drew more inferences from conditionals framed as inducements (threats an d promises) than from conditionals phrased as advice (tips and warnings). T he 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 h ave control over the consequent event whereas the giver of advice does not. In the experiment reported here, inducement and advice conditionals were c onstructed in brief contexts such that in either case the speaker could be seen to have high or low control. Participants drew many more conditional i nferences of all kinds for high control than for low control conditionals i n either context. A second finding of interest was that participants drew m any more forward (antecedent to consequent) inferences than backward infere nces with these kinds of realistic conditionals. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.