Explanatory Preferences Shape Learning and Inference
Abstract
Explanations play an important role in learning and inference. People often learn by seeking explanations, and they assess the viability of hypotheses by considering how well they explain the data. An emerging body of work reveals that both children and adults have strong and systematic intuitions about what constitutes a good explanation, and that these explanatory preferences have a systematic impact on explanation-based processes. In particular, people favor explanations that are simple and broad, with the consequence that engaging in explanation can shape learning and inference by leading people to seek patterns and favor hypotheses that support broad and simple explanations. Given the prevalence of explanation in everyday cognition, understanding explanation is therefore crucial to understanding learning and inference.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These explanation effects are thought to arise from a mismatch between the representations or processes induced by explaining and those which best support task performance.
“These effects are thought to arise from a mismatch between the representations or processes induced by a form of thinking (in this case, explaining) and those which best support task performance (Lombrozo, 2016).”
From Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse (2024) · cites this paper as Lombrozo, 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 101 · Cited by 229
- Authors
- Lombrozo, T.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lombrozo, Tania
- ORCID
- Lombrozo, Tania
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 748-759
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2513866468
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 101
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 2.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- explanation-based learning, hypothesis evaluation, simplicity bias, pattern seeking, children's reasoning, inference
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Learning, Knowledge, Intuition, Comprehension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
