Further evidence for the role of inferential reasoning in forward blocking

Previous studies on human causal learning (De Houwer & Beckers, 2003; De Houwer, Beckers, & Glautier, 2002) showed that secondary task difficulty (performing an easy vs. a difficult secondary task during the main causal learning task) and ceiling information (outcome occurs with a maximal vs. submaximal intensity) had an influence on forward blocking (i.e., lower causal ratings for cue T when AT+ trials are preceded by A+ trials than when no A+ trials are presented). We extended these studies by also examining self-reports of participants about the reasons behind their causal ratings. Blocking was found only for participants who reported an appropriate blocking inference. Furthermore, secondary task difficulty and ceiling information influenced the number of participants who reported an appropriate blocking inference. These findings point to a major impact of inferential reasoning in human causal learning.     

Associative and causal reasoning accounts of causal induction: Symmetries and asymmetries in predictive and diagnostic inferences

Associative and causal reasoning accounts are probably the two most influential types of accounts of causal reasoning processes. Only causal reasoning accounts predict certain asymmetries between predictive (i.e., reasoning from causes to effects) and diagnostic (i.e., reasoning from effects to causes) inferences regarding cue-interaction phenomena (e.g., the overshadowing effect). In the experiments reported here, we attempted to delimit the conditions under which these asymmetries occur. The results show that unless participants perceived the relevance of causal information to solving the task, predictive and diagnostic inferences were symmetrical. Specifically, Experiments 1A and 1B showed that implicitly stressing the relevance of causal information by having participants review the instructions favored the presence of asymmetries between predictive and diagnostic situations. In addition, Experiment 2 showed that explicitly stressing the relevance of causal information by stating the importance of the causal role of events after the instructions were given also favored the asymmetry.     

The role of learning data in causal reasoning about observations and interventions

Recent studies have shown that people have the capacity to derive interventional predictions for previously unseen actions from observational knowledge, a finding that challenges associative theories of causal learning and reasoning (e.g., Meder, Hagmayer, & Waldmann, 2008). Although some researchers have claimed that such inferences are based mainly on qualitative reasoning about the structure of a causal system (e.g., Sloman, 2005), we propose that people use both the causal structure and its parameters for their inferences. We here employ an observational trial-by-trial learning paradigm to test this prediction. In Experiment 1, the causal strength of the links within a given causal model was varied, whereas in Experiment 2, base rate information was manipulated while keeping the structure of the model constant. The results show that learners’ causal judgments were strongly affected by the observed learning data despite being presented with identical hypotheses about causal structure. The findings show furthermore that participants correctly distinguished between observations and hypothetical interventions. However, they did not adequately differentiate between hypothetical and counterfactual interventions.     

Outcome maximality and additivity training also influence cue competition in causal learning when learning involves many cues and events

Recent evidence shows that outcome maximality (e.g., De Houwer, Beckers, & Glautier, 2002) and additivity training (e.g., Lovibond, Been, Mitchell, Bouton, & Frohard, 2003) have an influence on cue competition in human causal learning. This evidence supports the idea that cue competition is based on controlled reasoning processes rather than on automatic associative processes. Until now, however, all the evidence for controlled reasoning processes comes from studies with rather simple designs that involved only few cues and events. We conducted two experiments with a complex design involving 24 different cues. The results showed that outcome maximality and additivity training had an influence on cue competition but that this influence was more pronounced for forward cue competition than for retrospective cue competition.     

There aren't plenty more fish in the sea: A causal network approach

The current research investigated how lay representations of the causes of an environmental problem may underlie individuals' reasoning about the issue. Naïve participants completed an experiment that involved two main tasks. The causal diagram task required participants to depict the causal relations between a set of factors related to overfishing and to estimate the strength of these relations. The counterfactual task required participants to judge the effect of counterfactual suppositions based on the diagrammed factors. We explored two major questions: (1) what is the relation between individual causal models and counterfactual judgments? Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Green et al., 1998, Br. J. Soc. Psychology, 37, 415), these judgments were best explained by a combination of the strength of both direct and indirect causal paths. (2) To what extent do people use two‐way causal thinking when reasoning about an environmental problem? In contrast to previous research (e.g., White, 2008, Appl. Cogn. Psychology, 22, 559), analyses based on individual causal networks revealed the presence of numerous feedback loops. The studies support the value of analysing individual causal models in contrast to consensual representations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in relation to causal reasoning as well as environmental psychology.     

Interpersonal regulation of relationship partners’ security: A causal chain analysis

Security in relationship partners’ positive regard promotes high-quality close relationships, and insecurity in partners’ regard undermines relationship quality. Hence, people may be motivated to dispel their close partners’ insecurity. The current research used an experimental-causal-chain design to test a novel model of the interpersonal regulation of relationship partners’ security. Manipulated perceptions of relationship partners’ insecurity increased the activation of security regulation goals (i.e., goals to improve partners’ security and dispel their insecurity) and selective attention to threat-relevant information (Study 1). In turn, manipulated security regulation goals increased the expression of positive regard for relationship partners, particularly in negatively evaluated and important domains (Study 2). In turn, manipulated expression of positive regard increased partners’ relationship security and satisfaction, particularly when partners had chronic doubts about the extent to which they were valued (Study 3). These studies provide compelling causal evidence for a relationship-protective response to detection of partner insecurity; people try to dispel the relationship threat posed by an insecure partner by adopting security regulation goals, which motivate expressions of positive regard that increase partner security.     

Meta-analytic techniques reveal that corvid causal reasoning in the Aesop’s Fable paradigm is driven by trial-and-error learning

The classic Aesop’s fable, Crow and the Pitcher, has inspired a major line of research in comparative cognition. Over the past several years, five articles (over 32 experiments) have examined the ability of corvids (e.g., rooks, crows, and jays) to complete lab-based analogs of this fable, by requiring them to drop stones and other objects into tubes of water to retrieve a floating worm (Bird and Emery in Curr Biol 19:1–5, 2009b; Cheke et al. in Anim Cogn 14:441–455, 2011; Jelbert et al. in PLoS One 3:e92895, 2014; Logan et al. in PLoS One 7:e103049, 2014; Taylor et al. in Gray R D 12:e26887, 2011). These researchers have stressed the unique potential of this paradigm for understanding causal reasoning in corvids. Ghirlanda and Lind (Anim Behav 123:239–247, 2017) re-evaluated trial-level data from these studies and concluded that initial preferences for functional objects, combined with trial-and-error learning, may account for subjects’ performance on key variants of the paradigm. In the present paper, we use meta-analytic techniques to provide more precise information about the rate and mode of learning that occurs within and across tasks. Within tasks, subjects learned from successful (but not unsuccessful) actions, indicating that higher-order reasoning about phenomena such as mass, volume, and displacement is unlikely to be involved. Furthermore, subjects did not transfer information learned in one task to subsequent tasks, suggesting that corvids do not engage with these tasks as variants of the same problem (i.e., how to generate water displacement to retrieve a floating worm). Our methodological analysis and empirical findings raise the question: Can Aesop’s fable studies distinguish between trial-and-error learning and/or higher-order causal reasoning? We conclude they cannot.     

Inference-based retrospective revaluation in human causal judgments requires knowledge of within-compound relationships

In an allergist causal-judgment task, food compounds were followed by an allergic reaction (e.g., AB+), and then 1 cue (A) was revalued. Experiment 1, in which participants who were instructed that whatever was true about one element of a causal compound was also true of the other, showed a reverse of the standard retrospective revaluation effect. That is, ratings of B were higher when A was causal (A+) than when A was safe (A-). This effect was taken to reflect inferential reasoning, not an associative mechanism. In Experiment 2, within-compound associations were found to be necessary to produce this inference-based revaluation. Therefore, evidence that within-compound associations are necessary for retrospective revaluation is consistent with the inferential account of causal judgments.     

Aging and retrospective revaluation of causal learning

In a 2-stage causal learning task, young and older participants first learned which foods presented in compound were followed by an allergic reaction (e.g., STEAK-BEANS→ REACTION) and then the causal efficacy of 1 food from these compounds was revalued (e.g., BEANS→ NO REACTION). In Experiment 1, unrelated food pairs were used, and although there were no age differences in compound- or single-cue-outcome learning, older adults did not retrospectively revalue the causal efficacy of the absent target cues (e.g., STEAK). However, they had weaker within-compound associations for the unrelated foods, and this may have prevented them from retrieving the representations of these cues. In Experiment 2, older adults still showed no retrospective revaluation of absent cues even though compound food cues with pre-existing associations were used (e.g., STEAK-POTATO), and they received additional learning trials. Finally, in Experiment 3, older adults revalued the causal efficacy of the target cues when small, unobtrusive icons of these cues were present during single-cue revaluation. These findings suggest that age-related deficits in causal learning for absent cues are due to ineffective associative binding and reactivation processes.     

Don't worry, be happy? Neuroticism, trait-consistent affect regulation, and performance

People regulate their affect either to feel good or to achieve instrumental success. The present experiments show that when driven by performance goals, people can be motivated to experience unpleasant affect when it is trait-consistent, because of its instrumental benefits (e.g., M. Tamir & M. D. Robinson, 2004). In 4 studies, individuals high in neuroticism were more likely than those low in neuroticism to choose to increase their level of worry, as indicated by self-reported preferences (Study 1) and by behavioral choices in experimental settings (Studies 2-4). As predicted, such preferences were evident when expecting to perform demanding tasks but not when expecting an undemanding task (Study 2). Study 4 suggests that such preferences for short-term unpleasant affect may be beneficial to performance.     

Encouraging children to think counterfactually enhances blocking in a causal learning task

According to a higher order reasoning account, inferential reasoning processes underpin the widely observed cue competition effect of blocking in causal learning. The inference required for blocking has been described as modus tollens (if p then q, not q therefore not p). Young children are known to have difficulties with this type of inference, but research with adults suggests that this inference is easier if participants think counterfactually. In this study, 100 children (51 five-year-olds and 49 six- to seven-year-olds) were assigned to two types of pretraining groups. The counterfactual group observed demonstrations of cues paired with outcomes and answered questions about what the outcome would have been if the causal status of cues had been different, whereas the factual group answered factual questions about the same demonstrations. Children then completed a causal learning task. Counterfactual pretraining enhanced levels of blocking as well as modus tollens reasoning but only for the younger children. These findings provide new evidence for an important role for inferential reasoning in causal learning.     

Modifying Children's Gender-Typed Musical Instrument Preferences: The Effects of Gender and Age

Previous research has indicated that children display gender-typed musical instrument preferences. Two studies were conducted to determine (a) whether these preferences can be modified by presenting counter-examples (i.e., instruments played by gender-inappropriate musicians) and (b) whether child gender or age (kindergarten vs. 4th grade) influences the efficacy of such interventions. A videotape presentation format was employed in Study 1 and drawings in Study 2. Children exposed to counter-examples were less stereotyped than those who saw the instruments without musicians (Study 1) or with gender-appropriate musicians (Studies 1 & 2). Age did not influence children's responsiveness to the counter-examples, but boys were more resistant to the intervention than girls. There was some evidence that the counter-examples were effective not simply because children were attracted to same-sex musicians. Instead, children's instrument choices also appeared to be motivated by a desire to avoid behaving like musicians of the other-sex. Potential strategies for increasing children's responsiveness to instrument counter-examples (e.g., multiple exemplars; portrayal of positive consequences) were also discussed.     

How I learned to stop fearing: Ideological differences in choice of reappraisal content

In down-regulating intergroup fear, an intense emotion common to intractable intergroup conflicts, people may employ various fear-reducing appraisals. Adopting a motivated reasoning perspective, we posited that the contents of individuals’ ideological beliefs influence the contents they employ to down-regulate fear, with rightists preferring ingroup-empowering content and leftists preferring outgroup-weakening content. In Study 1, rightists (vs. leftists) reported greater use of ingroup-empowering reappraisal to down-regulate fear, but no differences emerged in the use of outgroup-weakening reappraisal. Study 2 manipulated the contents’ perceived instrumentality in reducing fear, to examine this as an alternative mechanism. Perceived instrumentality influenced participants’ behavioral content preferences ahead of a fear induction, but the manipulation did not mitigate the right-left differences in ingroup-empowering reappraisal use once participants were confronted with the stimulus, replicating Study 1. Study 3 extended these findings, identifying ideological differences in two additional fear-reappraisal themes and in the attitudinal outcomes of fear regulation.     

Chunking in task sequences modulates task inhibition

In a study of the formation of representations of task sequences and its influence on task inhibition, participants first performed tasks in a predictable sequence (e.g., ABACBC) and then performed the tasks in a random sequence. Half of the participants were explicitly instructed about the predictable sequence, whereas the other participants did not receive these instructions. Task-sequence learning was inferred from shorter reaction times (RTs) in predictable relative to random sequences. Persisting inhibition of competing tasks was indicated by increased RTs in n- 2 task repetitions (e.g., ABA) compared with n- 2 nonrepetitions (e.g., CBA). The results show task-sequence learning for both groups. However, task inhibition was reduced in predictable relative to random sequences among instructed-learning participants who formed an explicit representation of the task sequence, whereas sequence learning and task inhibition were independent in the noninstructed group. We hypothesize that the explicit instructions led to chunking of the task sequence, and that n- 2 repetitions served as chunk points (ABA-CBC), so that within-chunk facilitation modulated the inhibition effect.     

Combining versus analyzing multiple causes: how domain assumptions and task context affect integration rules

In everyday life, people typically observe fragments of causal networks. From this knowledge, people infer how novel combinations of causes they may never have observed together might behave. I report on 4 experiments that address the question of how people intuitively integrate multiple causes to predict a continuously varying effect. Most theories of causal induction in psychology and statistics assume a bias toward linearity and additivity. In contrast, these experiments show that people are sensitive to cues biasing various integration rules. Causes that refer to intensive quantities (e.g., taste) or to preferences (e.g., liking) bias people toward averaging the causal influences, whereas extensive quantities (e.g., strength of a drug) lead to a tendency to add. However, the knowledge underlying these processes is fallible and unstable. Therefore, people are easily influenced by additional task-related context factors. These additional factors include the way data are presented, the difficulty of the inference task, and transfer from previous tasks. The results of the experiments provide evidence for causal model and related theories, which postulate that domain-general representations of causal knowledge are influenced by abstract domain knowledge, data-driven task factors, and processing difficulty.     

On the Independent Roles of Cognitive & Political Sophistication: Variation Across Attitudinal Objects

People are motivated to maintain consistency between importantly held identities, preferences, and judgments. In political contexts, motivated reasoning can help explain a wide range of political phenomena, including extremism, polarization, and misperceptions. However, recent findings in psychology have challenged this account. These perspectives emphasize the role of cognitive sophistication (e.g., analytical reasoning, numerical literacy) in political attitudes, but differ in terms of whether it is expected to attenuate or exacerbate politically motivated reasoning and belief in conspiracy theories. Yet prior investigations have not examined the relative and independent effects of both political and cognitive sophistication. Using data from two samples, including one sampled to approximate representativeness in the U.S., we demonstrate that both types of sophistication have independent and (at times) countervailing effects on belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and other political attitudes. Our results are critical for theories of cognitive sophistication, political cognition, and attitudes, and the psychology of conspiracy theories.     

Belief bias is stronger when reasoning is more difficult

Three studies examine the influence of varying the difficulty of reasoning on the extent of belief bias, while minimising the possibility that the manipulation would influence the way participants approach the task. Specifically, reasoning difficulty was manipulated by making variations in problem content, while maintaining all other aspects of the problems constant. In Study 1, 191 participants were presented with consistent and conflict problems varying in two levels of difficulty. The results showed a significant influence of problem difficulty on the extent of the belief bias, such that the effect of belief was more pronounced for difficult problems. This effect was stronger in Study 2 (73 participants) where the difference in the difficulty of the problems was purposely accentuated. The results of both studies stress the importance of controlling for problem difficulty when studying belief bias. Study 3 examined one consequence of this, i.e., the classic belief vs. logic interaction could be eliminated by manipulating problem difficulty. Theoretical implications for dual-process accounts of belief bias are also discussed.     

The role of stimulus comparison in human perceptual learning: effects of distractor placement

Within-subjects procedures were used to assess the influence of stimulus comparison on perceptual learning in humans. In Experiment 1, participants received intermixed (A, A', A, A',…) or blocked (B, B,…, B', B',…) exposure to pairs of similar female faces. In a subsequent same/different discrimination task, participants were more accurate when the test involved A and A' than when it involved B and B' (or novel faces: C and C'). This perceptual learning effect was reduced by placing a visual distractor (*: either another face or a checkerboard) between successive presentations of the faces during the exposure stage (e.g., A - * - A'). The attenuation of the intermixed versus blocked difference was particularly marked when faces were used as the distractor. In Experiment 2, this reduction in perceptual learning was more marked when * was positioned between the pairs of intermixed faces (i.e., A - * - A') than when it preceded and succeeded those faces (i.e., * - A - A' - *). These results provide the first direct evidence that the opportunity to compare stimuli plays a causal role in supporting perceptual learning. They also support the specific view that perceptual learning reflects an interaction between a short-term habituation process, that ordinarily biases processing away from the frequently presented common elements and toward their less frequently presented unique elements, and a long-term representational process that reflects this bias.     

Emotional Policy: Personal Sadness and Anger Shape Judgments about a Welfare Case

When making decisions about a welfare case, it is reasonable for one's thoughts and feelings about the potential welfare recipient to influence the decision. It is less reasonable for one's "incidental" feelings (e.g., sadness or anger arising from an event in one's personal life) to influence such decisions. In two studies, however, data reveal that incidental anger and sadness do in fact carry over, shaping welfare policy preferences. Study 1 found that incidental anger decreased the amount of welfare assistance participants recommended providing relative to neutral emotion, whereas sadness increased the amount recommended. Study 2 replicated the results and found that limiting participants' cognitive resources eliminated the difference between sadness and anger, thus implying that differences in depth-of-thought drove the effects. In sum, the results reveal ways in which: (a) personal emotions carry over to shape preferences for public policies, (b) emotions of the same valence have opposing effects, and (c) differential depth-of-cognitive-processing contributes to such effects.     

The explanatory structure of unexplainable events: Causal constraints on magical reasoning

A common intuition, often captured in fiction, is that some impossible events (e.g., levitating a stone) are “more impossible” than others (e.g., levitating a feather). We investigated the source of this intuition, hypothesizing that graded notions of impossibility arise from explanatory considerations logically precluded by the violation at hand but still taken into account. Studies 1–4 involved college undergraduates (n = 357), and Study 5 involved preschool-aged children (n = 32). In Studies 1 and 2, participants saw pairs of magical spells that violated one of 18 causal principles—six physical, six biological, and six psychological—and were asked to indicate which spell would be more difficult to learn. Both spells violated the same causal principle but differed in their relation to a subsidiary principle. Participants’ judgments of spell difficulty honored the subsidiary principle, even when participants were given the option of judging the two spells equally difficult. Study 3 replicated those effects with Likert-type ratings; Study 4 replicated them in an open-ended version of the task in which participants generated their own causal violations; and Study 5 replicated them with children. Taken together, these findings suggest that events that defy causal explanation are interpreted in terms of explanatory considerations that hold in the absence of such violations.