| This paper has investigated330college students’ logical reasoning in the version of the social contracts and precautions selection task, by adopting selection task and the experimental method designed by Rozin et al. This aim is to investigate that whether people can make a systematic distinction between two types of deontic rule: social contracts and precautions. Results of the studies reveal that:(1) In both versions of the selection task, testees give different criterion judgments and rule justifications to the violation of the rules. This shows that testees make a systematic distinction between two types of deontic rule in the process of deontic reasoning.(2) People associate violations of different rules with different emotions. Participants will associate violations of social contracts with anger and violations of precautions with fear. This shows that testees make a systematic distinction between two types of deontic rule in the process of deontic reasoning.(3) In the experimental condition, the intention of the rule violation has different effects on testees’ reasoning in the version of the social contracts and precautions selection task. The rule is broken accidentally or intentionally will influence participants’ reasoning about the social contract rule, but not about the precaution rule.Through three experiments, we want to illustrate that people make a systematic distinction between two types of deontic rule:social contracts and precautions. So as to provide a support to the nature of deontic reasoning that has drawn from moral reasoning literatures, and to provide a support to resolve the discrepancy between the cognitive and moral reasoning literatures. |
