Conjunctive explanations: When two reasons are better than one.

By John Leddo, Robert P. Abelson, Paget H. Gross. 1984

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Explanation in Human-AI Systems: A Literature Meta-Review, Synopsis of Key Ideas and Publications, and Bibliography for Explainable AI (2019, neutral): “…Giffin, Wilkenfeld and Lombrozo, 2017; Gopnik, 2000; Kass and Leake, 1987; Keil, 2006; Keil, Rozenblit, and Mills, 2004; Koehler, 1991; Kuhn, 2001; Leddo, Abelson, and Gross, 1984; Lombrozo, 2006, 2009a, 2011, 2016; Lombrozo and Carey, 2006; Lombrozo and Gwynne, 2014a; Lombrozo, Sloman, Strevens,…”
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences (2017, background): “[96] further showed that for failed or uncompleted actions, just one cause (goal or precondition) was considered a better explanation, indicating that failed actions are explained differently.”
When People Explain Difficult Actions, is the Causal Question How or Why? (2001, background): “Study 1 also examined both actions and nonactions to determine whether the pattern of explanations for actions shown by McClure and Hilton (1997) extends to nonactions (Leddo et al., 1984; McClure et al., 1989).”
Distinguishing the effects of beliefs and preconditions: The folk psychology of goals and actions (2005, unknown): “Leddo et al .”