Strategies to intervene on causal systems are adaptively selected.

How do people choose interventions to learn about causal systems? Here, we considered two possibilities. First, we test an information sampling model, information gain, which values interventions that can discriminate between a learner's hypotheses (i.e. possible causal structures). We compare this discriminatory model to a positive testing strategy that instead aims to confirm individual hypotheses. Experiment 1 shows that individual behavior is described best by a mixture of these two alternatives. In Experiment 2 we find that people are able to adaptively alter their behavior and adopt the discriminatory model more often after experiencing that the confirmatory strategy leads to a subjective performance decrement. In Experiment 3, time pressure leads to the opposite effect of inducing a change towards the simpler positive testing strategy. These findings suggest that there is no single strategy that describes how intervention decisions are made. Instead, people select strategies in an adaptive fashion that trades off their expected performance and cognitive effort.