The typicality effect in basic needs

Abstract

According to the so-called Classical Theory, concepts are mentally represented by individually necessary and jointly sufficient application conditions. One of the principal empirical objections against this view stems from evidence that people judge some instances of a concept to be more typical than others. In this paper we present and discuss four empirical studies that investigate the extent to which this ‘typicality effect’ holds for the concept of basic needs. Through multiple operationalizations of typicality, our studies yielded evidence for a strong effect of this kind: (1) Participants tended to recall the same core examples of the concept in a free-listing task. (2) They judged some basic needs to be more typical than others. (3) The items that were judged to be more typical were listed more frequently in the free-listing task. (4) These items were listed earlier on in the free-listing task. (5) Typical basic needs, as well as non needs, were classified faster than atypical basic needs in a reaction time study. These findings suggest that the concept of basic needs may have a non-classical (e.g., exemplar or prototype) structure. If so, the quest for a simple and robust intensional analysis of the concept may be futile.

Forming Evaluations of Moral Character: How Are Multiple Pieces of Information Prioritized and Integrated?

“…We conceive of the number of participants who clicked on a trait and the mean position of a trait in search as both being indices of the importance of that trait to forming an evaluation of moral character, so it is not surprising that the trait‐level mean positions are strongly correlated with the number of times a trait was clicked, for both the unconditioned sample, ρ(20) = −.73, p < .001, and the conditioned sample, ρ(20) = −.69, p < .001. Based on this, we also computed a cognitive salience score for each trait, following prior work (Pölzler & Hannikainen, 2022; Sutrop, 2001). This score is calculated as the number of participants who clicked on a trait (frequency), divided by the total sample size times the mean position of a trait among those who clicked on it (i.e., in the conditioned sample), S = F / ( N * mP ), normalized such that the most salient trait (i.e., honesty) is scored as 1 7.…”

Winter is coming: How laypeople think about different kinds of needs

“…In the course of this paper, we identify a hierarchy of four kinds of needs that recur in the literature: survival, decency, belonging, and autonomy. We ask whether these needs are perceived as having different degrees of importance (first indications that this might indeed be the case are provided by a few studies, see [16,17]). To test this, we designed and conducted two empirical studies.…”