Necessity and sufficiency in abstract conditional reasoning

Abstract

The necessity and sufficiency of the cause relates to the conclusions people draw on everyday conditional inference problems. The current research explores the effects of necessity and sufficiency in an abstract causal context. Three experiments showed that the subjective ratings of necessity and sufficiency diverge from the objective levels: A sufficient and necessary cause is more often labelled as sufficient than a sufficient and not-necessary cause. Likewise, a necessary and sufficient cause is more often labelled necessary than a necessary and not-sufficient cause. In Experiments 1 and 2 we observed that the robust effects of sufficiency on MP and MT, and of necessity on AC and DA found on everyday reasoning generalise to abstract conditionals. There were also partial effects of sufficiency on AC and DA, and of necessity on MP and MT. When the problem presentation is simplified, as in Experiment 3, these partial effects on reasoning disappear. The reasoning results then relate to the objective levels and less to the subjective levels of necessity and sufficiency. This divergence sheds doubt on the idea that reasoners base their inferences on an active assessment of the necessity and/or sufficiency of the causal relation.