Literature DB >> 27312597

The influence of the number of relevant causes on the processing of covariation information in causal reasoning.

Kyungil Kim1, Arthur B Markman2, Tae Hoon Kim3.   

Abstract

Research on causal reasoning has focused on the influence of covariation between candidate causes and effects on causal judgments. We suggest that the type of covariation information to which people attend is affected by the task being performed. For this, we manipulated the test questions for the evaluation of contingency information and observed its influence on both contingency learning and subsequent causal selections. When people select one cause related to an effect, they focus on conditional contingencies assuming the absence of alternative causes. When people select two causes related to an effect, they focus on conditional contingencies assuming the presence of alternative causes. We demonstrated this use of contingency information in four experiments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Causal reasoning; Conditional contingency; Covariation; Task effect

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27312597     DOI: 10.1007/s10339-016-0770-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Process        ISSN: 1612-4782


  25 in total

1.  Belief-based and covariation-based cues affect causal discounting.

Authors:  J A Fugelsang; V A Thompson
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2001-03

Review 2.  Covariation in natural causal induction.

Authors:  P W Cheng; L R Novick
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question.

Authors:  Darrell J Collins; David R Shanks
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.143

Review 4.  Associationism and cognition: human contingency learning at 25.

Authors:  David R Shanks
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  Inferring causality assessments from predictive responses: cue interaction without cue competition.

Authors:  Anders Winman; Gustaf Gredebäck
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  The psychophysics of contingency assessment.

Authors:  Lorraine G Allan; Samuel D Hannah; Matthew J C Crump; Shepard Siegel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2008-05

7.  Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects.

Authors:  H Matute; F Arcediano; R R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning.

Authors:  A R Wagner; F A Logan; K Haberlandt; T Price
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1968-02

9.  Assessing the empirical validity of the "take-the-best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference.

Authors:  A Bröder
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Judgement of two causal candidates from contingency information: effects of relative prevalence of the two causes.

Authors:  Peter White
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2004-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.