Sehrang Joo

People are more inclined to agree with certain causal statements when a person acts intentionally than when a person acts unintentionally or without agency. Most existing research has assumed that this effect is to be explained in terms of the operation of people’s causal cognition. We propose a different explanation which involves a linguistic phenomenon involving the impact of agency on people’s judgments about a broader class of sentences, including non-causal sentences. Study 1 shows that the effect arises for both causal and non-causal sentences. The remaining studies show that the effect arises only when the subject of the sentence is animate (Study 2), that the effect arises both for outcomes with negative valence and outcomes with neutral valence (Study 3) and that the effect is driven by whether or not a person exercises agentive control over her body, rather than whether or not she intends the particular outcome of her action (Study 4). We conclude with a formal linguistic theory that captures these effects.

People may conceptualize certain categories as held together by a category-specific “essence”—some unobservable, critical feature that causes the external features of a category to emerge. But what is the nature of this essence? Recently, Rose and Nichols have argued that something's essence is fundamentally its telos or purpose. However, Neufeld has challenged this work on theoretical grounds, arguing that these effects arise only because people infer an underlying internal change when reasoning about a change in telos. In Neufeld's view, it is the underlying internal cause, and not the telos itself, that serves as an essence (consistent with classic views of scientific essentialism). Here, we ask: Is teleology the primary force behind psychological essentialism? We begin by successfully replicating Rose and Nichols’ key findings in support of teleological essentialism. In two further experiments, however, we demonstrate that teleology may not be the central way that people understand the essences of living things. We show that internal changes matter at least as much as changes in teleology. These findings suggest that while teleology may be one important cue to category membership and the essences of living things, it may be premature to say that we are “teleologically essentialist.”

People often think of objects teleologically. For instance, we might understand a hammer in terms of its purpose of driving in nails. But how should we understand teleological thinking in the first place? This paper separates mere teleology (simply ascribing a telos) and teleological explanation (thinking something is explained by its telos) by examining cases where an object was designed for one purpose but is now widely used for a different purpose. Across four experiments, we show that teleology judgments and teleological explanation judgments are dissociable, and identify three factors that influenced teleology judgments (and one that did not).