CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 212Categorization, perception, and languageSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition

Generic Statements Require Little Evidence for Acceptance but Have Powerful Implications

Open access
Cimpian, Andrei, Brandone, Amanda C., Gelman, Susan A.·2010·Cognitive Science
DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01126.xPMC PMC2992340
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generic statements (e.g., “Birds lay eggs”) express generalizations about categories. In this paper, we hypothesized that there is a paradoxical asymmetry at the core of generic meaning, such that these sentences have extremely strong implications but require little evidence to be judged true. Four experiments confirmed the hypothesized asymmetry: Participants interpreted novel generics such as “Lorches have purple feathers” as referring to nearly all lorches, but they judged the same novel generics to be true given a wide range of prevalence levels (e.g., even when only 10% or 30% of lorches had purple feathers). A second hypothesis, also confirmed by the results, was that novel generic sentences about dangerous or distinctive properties would be more acceptable than generic sentences that were similar but did not have these connotations. In addition to clarifying important aspects of generics’ meaning, these findings are applicable to a range of real‐world processes such as stereotyping and political discourse.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01126.x

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Past research found that generic sentences implied that a property was broadly true and conceptually central, and that the category expressed was stable with inherent properties.

    “Past research found that generic sentences implied that a property was broadly true (28,35,45,46) and conceptually central (37,38), and that the category expressed was stable with inherent properties (41,47).”

    From Generic language in scientific communication (2019) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Cimpian et al. found that while generic claims of the form 'Ps are f' are generally accepted on relatively weak evidence, when participants are unfamiliar with P they construed such claims strongly, as conveying that almost all Ps are f.

    “Cimpian et al. ([2010]) found that while generic claims of the form 'Ps (for example, men) are f (for example, resist green behaviour)' are generally accepted on relatively weak evidence, when they are unfamiliar with P, study participants construed such claims strongly, as conveying that almost all Ps are f.”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Cimpian et al. [2010]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Carlson GN Carlson GN Pelletier FJ The truth conditions of generic sentences: Two contrasting views The generic book 1995 Chicago, IL The University of Chicago Press 224 237
  2. Carlson GN Pelletier FJ The generic book 1995 Chicago, IL The University of Chicago Press
  3. Dahl Ö Keenan EL On generics Formal semantics of natural language: Papers from a colloquium sponsored by the King’s College Research Centre, Cambridge 1975 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 99 111
  4. Levinson SC Pragmatics 1983 Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cimpian, A., Brandone, A. C., & Gelman, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Cimpian, Andrei
ORCID
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-18
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
1452-1482
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
DOI
10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01126.x
PMC
PMC2992340
OpenAlex
W2102602565
Cited by
209
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
10.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R56HD036043, R01HD036043)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
Keywords
generic statements, category generalization, sentence acceptability, stereotyping, political discourse

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