2019/05/17 by Molly S. Quinn, Kathleen Campbell, Quinn, Molly S +3
Arts and Humanities · Neuroscience · Social Sciences · #Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) #Cognitive Science and Education Research #Computation and Language (cs.CL) #Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics #FOS: Computer and information sciences #Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC) #Misinformation and Its Impacts #Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.08063
openalex publication_date 2019/05/17 · openalex created_date 2019/09/19 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
The answers people give when asked to 'think of the unexpected' for everyday\nevent scenarios appear to be more expected than unexpected. There are expected\nunexpected outcomes that closely adhere to the given information in a scenario,\nbased on familiar disruptions and common plan-failures. There are also\nunexpected unexpected outcomes that are more inventive, that depart from given\ninformation, adding new concepts/actions. However, people seem to tend to\nconceive of the unexpected as the former more than the latter. Study 1 tests\nthese proposals by analysing the object-concepts people mention in their\nreports of the unexpected and the agreement between their answers. Study 2\nshows that object-choices are weakly influenced by recency, the order of\nsentences in the scenario. The implications of these results for ideas in\nphilosophy, psychology and computing is discussed\n