Teleology beyond explanation: What factors influence teleology judgments?

What do we mean when we say something is for a given purpose? Teleology (i.e., something’s purpose) is often associated with teleological explanation (i.e., an explanation referring to that purpose). For instance, a knife may be for cutting things precisely because its existence can be explained by that purpose. But do people ascribe a telos to an object only if they think that object has a teleological explanation? Experiment 1 examined cases where an object was designed for one purpose but is now widely used for a different purpose, and found that teleology judgments and teleological explanation judgments are dissociable: Only an artifact’s original purpose could serve as an explanation, but its new purpose could also be its telos. Experiments 2-3 identified three factors that influence teleology judgments other than intentional design: present use (i.e., how a community is currently using the artifact), collective recognition (i.e., how a community together characterizes the artifact) and success at a function (i.e., how well the artifact can perform its purpose). Finally, Experiment 4 identified one factor that (perhaps unexpectedly) did not affect teleology judgments. In contrast to its role in teleological explanation, structure- function fit did not impact teleology judgments. Implications for work on object teleology and interpretations of teleological reasoning more generally are discussed.