Explanatory preferences for complexity matching.
People are adept at generating and evaluating explanations for events around them. But what makes for a satisfying explanation? While some scholars argue that individuals find simple explanations to be more satisfying (Lombrozo, 2007), others argue that complex explanations are preferred (Zemla, et...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230929 |
| _version_ | 1818587866638319616 |
|---|---|
| author | Jonathan B Lim Daniel M Oppenheimer |
| author_facet | Jonathan B Lim Daniel M Oppenheimer |
| author_sort | Jonathan B Lim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | People are adept at generating and evaluating explanations for events around them. But what makes for a satisfying explanation? While some scholars argue that individuals find simple explanations to be more satisfying (Lombrozo, 2007), others argue that complex explanations are preferred (Zemla, et al. 2017). Uniting these perspectives, we posit that people believe a satisfying explanation should be as complex as the event being explained-what we term the complexity matching hypothesis. Thus, individuals will prefer simple explanations for simple events, and complex explanations for complex events. Four studies provide robust evidence for the complexity-matching hypothesis. In studies 1-3, participants read scenarios and then predicted the complexity of a satisfying explanation (Study 1), generated an explanation themselves (Study 2), and evaluated explanations (Study 3). Lastly, in Study 4, we explored a different manipulation of complexity to demonstrate robustness across paradigms. We end with a discussion of mechanisms that might underlie this preference-matching phenomenon. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T09:15:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7d3a12791991470881bd2e38358f949c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T09:15:40Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-7d3a12791991470881bd2e38358f949c2022-12-21T22:36:54ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01154e023092910.1371/journal.pone.0230929Explanatory preferences for complexity matching.Jonathan B LimDaniel M OppenheimerPeople are adept at generating and evaluating explanations for events around them. But what makes for a satisfying explanation? While some scholars argue that individuals find simple explanations to be more satisfying (Lombrozo, 2007), others argue that complex explanations are preferred (Zemla, et al. 2017). Uniting these perspectives, we posit that people believe a satisfying explanation should be as complex as the event being explained-what we term the complexity matching hypothesis. Thus, individuals will prefer simple explanations for simple events, and complex explanations for complex events. Four studies provide robust evidence for the complexity-matching hypothesis. In studies 1-3, participants read scenarios and then predicted the complexity of a satisfying explanation (Study 1), generated an explanation themselves (Study 2), and evaluated explanations (Study 3). Lastly, in Study 4, we explored a different manipulation of complexity to demonstrate robustness across paradigms. We end with a discussion of mechanisms that might underlie this preference-matching phenomenon.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230929 |
| spellingShingle | Jonathan B Lim Daniel M Oppenheimer Explanatory preferences for complexity matching. PLoS ONE |
| title | Explanatory preferences for complexity matching. |
| title_full | Explanatory preferences for complexity matching. |
| title_fullStr | Explanatory preferences for complexity matching. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Explanatory preferences for complexity matching. |
| title_short | Explanatory preferences for complexity matching. |
| title_sort | explanatory preferences for complexity matching |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230929 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jonathanblim explanatorypreferencesforcomplexitymatching AT danielmoppenheimer explanatorypreferencesforcomplexitymatching |