ABSTRACT
Three experiments with a probabilistic truth-table evaluation task suggest that most people interpret conditionals as asserting a high conditional probability of the consequent, given the antecedent. A minority seems to endorse an interpretation in terms of a single explicit mental model (Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991). There was no evidence that a substantive number of people interpret conditionals as material implications. We propose a revision of the theory of mental models that can accommodate both prevalent interpretations as two levels of elaboration of model-based representations.
