Literature DB >> 7666763

Causal inferences as perceptual judgements.

J R Anderson1, C F Sheu.   

Abstract

We analyze how subjects make causal judgements based on contingency information in two paradigms. In the discrete paradigm, subjects are given specific information about the frequency a, with which a purported cause occurs with the effect; the frequency b, with which it occurs without the effect; the frequency c, with which the effect occurs when the cause is absent; and the frequency d, with which both cause and effect are absent. Subjects respond to P1 = a/(a + b) and P2 = c/(c + d). Some subjects' ratings are just a function of P1 while others are a function of delta P = P1-P2. Subjects' post-experiment reports are accurate reflections of which model they use. Combining these two types of subjects results in data well fit by the weighted delta P model (Allan, 1993). In the continuous paradigm, subjects control the purported causes (by clicking a mouse) and observe whether an effect occurs. Because cause and effects occur continuously in time, it is not possible to explicitly pair causes and effects. Rather, subjects report that they are responding to the rate at which the effects occur when they click versus when they do not click. Their ratings are a function of rates and not probabilities. In general, we argue that subjects' causal ratings are judgments of the magnitude of perceptually salient variables in the experiment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7666763     DOI: 10.3758/bf03197251

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  4 in total

1.  Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.

Authors:  G B Chapman; S J Robbins
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1990-09

2.  College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity.

Authors:  E A Wasserman; D J Neunaber
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.

Authors:  E A Wasserman; W W Dorner; S F Kao
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 4.  Human contingency judgments: rule based or associative?

Authors:  L G Allan
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 17.737

  4 in total
  23 in total

1.  Causal judgment from contingency information: relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgment.

Authors:  P A White
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-04

2.  Effects of wording and stimulus format on the use of contingency information in causal judgment.

Authors:  Peter A White
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-03

3.  A dual-process model of belief and evidence interactions in causal reasoning.

Authors:  Jonathan A Fugelsang; Valerie A Thompson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-07

4.  Data selection and natural sampling: probabilities do matter.

Authors:  Mike Oaksford; Michelle Wakefield
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-01

5.  Causal judgment from contingency information: a systematic test of the pCI rule.

Authors:  Peter A White
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-04

6.  Framing effects in inference tasks--and why they are normatively defensible.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-09

7.  An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning.

Authors:  Magda Osman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-12

8.  Models of covariation-based causal judgment: a review and synthesis.

Authors:  José C Perales; David R Shanks
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-08

Review 9.  Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference.

Authors:  Marc J Buehner
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.986

10.  Surprise and change: variations in the strength of present and absent cues in causal learning.

Authors:  Edward A Wasserman; Leyre Castro
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.