  We study abductive, causal, and non-causal conditionals in indicative and
counterfactual formulations using probabilistic truth table tasks under
incomplete probabilistic knowledge (N = 80). We frame the task as a
probability-logical inference problem. The most frequently observed response
type across all conditions was a class of conditional event interpretations of
conditionals; it was followed by conjunction interpretations. An interesting
minority of participants neglected some of the relevant imprecision involved in
the premises when inferring lower or upper probability bounds on the target
conditional/counterfactual ("halfway responses"). We discuss the results in the
light of coherence-based probability logic and the new paradigm psychology of
reasoning.
