Do Conditional Hypotheses Target Rare Events?

When testing hypotheses, rare or unexpected observations are normatively more informative than common observations, and recent studies have shown that participants' behavior reflects this principle. Research has also shown that, when asked to test conditional hypotheses ("If X, then Y") that are abstract or unfamiliar, participants overwhelmingly consider a supporting observation mentioned in the hypothesis (X&Y) to be more informative than a supporting observation not mentioned ( approximately X approximately Y). These two empirical findings would mesh well if conditional hypotheses tend to be phrased in terms of rare, rather than common, events.