Children’s causal reasoning: Counterfactual thinking occurs for ‘negative’ outcomes only

Harris, German and Mills (Children’s use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition, 61 (1996), 223–259), following Mackie, argue that children make explicit use of counterfactual thinking in arriving at causal judgments. They showed that children as young as 3, in explaining simple mishap events, made reference to courses of action that a protagonist had rejected, when that course of action would have prevented the observed outcome. It is hypothesized here that such counterfactual thinking might have been invoked by the ‘negative’ mishaps rather than as part of the causal reasoning process. Although the generation of counterfactuals in explanation was replicated using mishap outcomes such as those used by Harris et al., counterfactual thinking was not evident in children’s explanations of ‘positive’ outcomes. These results undermine the view that a counterfactual thinking process, as indexed by reference to possible actions rejected by a protagonist, is necessary for causal reasoning. Alternative characterizations of the relationship between causals and counterfactuals are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

The impact of domain-specific beliefs on decisions and causal judgments

Extensive evidence suggests that people often rely on their causal beliefs in their decisions and causal judgments. To date, however, there is a dearth of research comparing the impact of causal beliefs in different domains. We conducted two experiments to map the influence of domain-specific causal beliefs on the evaluation of empirical evidence when making decisions and subsequent causal judgments. Participants made 120 decisions in a two-alternative forced-choice task, framed in either a medical or a financial domain. Before each decision, participants could actively search for information about the outcome (“occurrence of a disease” or “decrease in a company's share price”) on the basis of four cues. To analyze the strength of causal beliefs, we set two cues to have a generative relation to the outcome and two to have a preventive relation to the outcome. To examine the influence of empirical evidence, we manipulated the predictive power (i.e., cue validities) of the cues. Both experiments included a validity switch, where the four selectable cues switched from high to low validity or vice versa. Participants had to make a causal judgment about each cue before and after the validity switch. In the medical domain, participants stuck to the causal information in causal judgments, even when evidence was contradictory, while decisions showed an effect of both empirical and causal information. In contrast, in the financial domain, participants mainly adapted their decisions and judgments to the cue validities. We conclude that the strength of causal beliefs (1) is shaped by the domain, and (2) has a differential influence on the degree to which empirical evidence is taken into account in causal judgments and decision making.     

Similarity and causality in the use of social analogies

The present paper examines whether causal relations are necessary for the use of social analogies. Although causal relations increase the use of social analogies, it is not known whether they are necessary. Establishing this is important for understanding both analogical reasoning and learning in novel situations where people lack knowledge of the causal relations. Study 1 demonstrated that, in the absence of an explicit causal relation, as the similarity between a target individual and a previously encountered individual (the base) increased, people thought the target was increasingly likely to perform the same behavior as the base. Thus, a causal relation is not necessary. Two additional studies used asymmetries in similarity judgments to provide additional evidence that when reasoning analogically people relied on similarity. Manipulating whether subjects focused primarily on the target or the base completely reversed asymmetries both in judgments of how similar the target was to the base and in predictions of how likely the target was to perform the same behavior as the base. The asymmetries for similarity and prediction were completely parallel. Thus, in the absence of an explicit causal relation, use of the analogy was based on judgments of global similarity. The implications of these asymmetries in similarity judgments and predictions for other judgments, such as stereotyping, are also discussed.     

Are Causal Structure and Intervention Judgments Inextricably Linked? A Developmental Study

The application of the formal framework of causal Bayesian Networks to children’s causal learning provides the motivation to examine the link between judgments about the causal structure of a system, and the ability to make inferences about interventions on components of the system. Three experiments examined whether children are able to make correct inferences about interventions on different causal structures. The first two experiments examined whether children’s causal structure and intervention judgments were consistent with one another. In Experiment 1, children aged between 4 and 8 years made causal structure judgments on a three‐component causal system followed by counterfactual intervention judgments. In Experiment 2, children’s causal structure judgments were followed by intervention judgments phrased as future hypotheticals. In Experiment 3, we explicitly told children what the correct causal structure was and asked them to make intervention judgments. The results of the three experiments suggest that the representations that support causal structure judgments do not easily support simple judgments about interventions in children. We discuss our findings in light of strong interventionist claims that the two types of judgments should be closely linked.     

When Possibility Informs Reality: Counterfactual Thinking as a Cue to Causality

People often engage in counterfactual thinking, that is, imagining alternatives to the real world and mentally playing out the consequences. Yet the counterfactuals people tend to imagine are a small subset of those that could possibly be imagined. There is some debate as to the relation between counterfactual thinking and causal beliefs. Some researchers argue that counterfactual thinking is the key to causal judgments; current research suggests, however, that the relation is rather complex. When people think about counterfactuals, they focus on ways to prevent bad or uncommon outcomes; when people think about causes, they focus on things that covary with outcomes. Counterfactual thinking may affect causality judgments by changing beliefs about the probabilities of possible alternatives to what actually happened, thereby changing beliefs as to whether a cause and effect actually covary. The way in which counterfactual thinking affects causal attributions may have practical consequences for mental health and the legal system.     

A Possible Connection between Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relation Representations

Kosslyn (1987) theorized that the visual system uses two types of spatial relations. Categorical spatial relations represent a range of locations as an equivalence class, whereas coordinate spatial relations represent the precise distance between two objects. Data indicate a left hemisphere (LH) advantage for processing categorical spatial relations and a right hemisphere (RH) advantage for processing coordinate spatial relations. Although generally assumed to be independent processes, this article proposes a possible connection between categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Specifically, categorical spatial relations may be an initial stage in the formation of coordinate spatial relations. Three experiments tested the hypothesis that categorical information would benefit tasks that required coordinate judgments. Experiments 1 and 2 presented categorical information before participants made coordinate judgments and coordinate information before participants made categorical judgments. Categorical information sped the processing of a coordinate task under a range of experimental variables; however, coordinate information did not benefit categorical judgments. Experiment 3 used this priming paradigm to present stimuli in the left or right visual field. Although visual field differences were present in the third experiment, categorical information did not speed the processing of a coordinate task. The lack of priming effects in Experiment 3 may have been due to methodological changes. In general, support is provided that categorical spatial relations may act as an initial step in the formation of more precise distance representations, i.e., coordinate spatial relations.     

Effect of counterfactual and factual thinking on causal judgements

The significance of counterfactual thinking in the causal judgement process has been emphasized for nearly two decades, yet no previous research has directly compared the relative effect of thinking counterfactually versus factually on causal judgement. Three experiments examined this comparison by manipulating the task frame used to focus participants' thinking about a target event. Prior to making judgements about causality, preventability, blame, and control, participants were directed to think about a target actor either in counterfactual terms (what the actor could have done to change the outcome) or in factual terms (what the actor had done that led to the outcome). In each experiment, the effect of counterfactual thinking did not differ reliably from the effect of factual thinking on causal judgement. Implications for research on causal judgement and mental representation are discussed.     

A Process Model of Causal Reasoning

How do we make causal judgments? Many studies have demonstrated that people are capable causal reasoners, achieving success on tasks from reasoning to categorization to interventions. However, less is known about the mental processes used to achieve such sophisticated judgments. We propose a new process model—the mutation sampler—that models causal judgments as based on a sample of possible states of the causal system generated using the Metropolis–Hastings sampling algorithm. Across a diverse array of tasks and conditions encompassing over 1,700 participants, we found that our model provided a consistently closer fit to participant judgments than standard causal graphical models. In particular, we found that the biases introduced by mutation sampling accounted for people's consistent, predictable errors that the normative model by definition could not. Moreover, using a novel experimental methodology, we found that those biases appeared in the samples that participants explicitly judged to be representative of a causal system. We conclude by advocating sampling methods as plausible process-level accounts of the computations specified by the causal graphical model framework and highlight opportunities for future research to identify not just what reasoners compute when drawing causal inferences, but also how they compute it.     

用不同外部表征方式集中呈现信息条件下的因果力判断

在分别用文字陈述、表格和图形三种外部表征方式集中呈现因果信息的条件下,用直接估计因果力大小的实验范式考察单一因果关系因果力估计的特点,检验概率对比模型,效力PC理论和pCI规则。让287名大学生被试估计不同化学药物影响动物基因变异的能力。结果发现,对单一因果关系因果力估计具有以下4个特点：⑴不对称性：在预防原因条件下的因果力估计较多符合效力PC理论,而在产生原因条件下的因果力估计一般符合概率对比模型;⑵文字陈述、表格和图形三种信息外部表征方式,不影响产生原因条件下的因果力估计,但影响预防原因条件下的因果力估计。在预防原因条件下,与文字陈述和表格表征相比,图形表征会促使更多被试按效力PC理论来做因果力估计;⑶没有被试使用pCI规则;⑷被试估计因果力所使用的规则存在明显的个体差异。     

Effect of theory-based feature correlations on typicality judgments

In the present study, we examine what types of feature correlations are salient in our conceptual representations. It was hypothesized that of all possible feature pairs, those that are explicitly recognized as correlated (i.e., explicit pairs) and affect typicality judgments are the ones that are more likely theory based than are those that are not explicitly recognized (i.e., implicit pairs). Real-world categories and their properties, taken from Malt and Smith (1984), were examined. We found that explicit pairs had a greater number of asymmetric dependency relations (i.e., one feature depends on the other feature, but not vice versa) and stronger dependency relations than did implicit pairs, which were statistically correlated in the environment but were not recognized as such. In addition, people more often provided specific relation labels for explicit pairs than for implicit pairs; these labels were most often causal relations. Finally, typicality judgments were more affected when explicit correlations were broken than when implicit correlations were broken. It is concluded that in natural categories, feature correlations that are explicitly represented and affect typicality judgments are the ones about which people have theories.     

Acquisition context and the use of causal rules

Judgmental asymmetries in using causal knowledge (e.g., for prediction or diagnosis) have been attributed to the inherent directionality of causal knowledge. The present study examines the effect of acquisition context--representations used for initial instruction, and the type of judgement required during acquisition--on judgments using causal rules. In contrast to traditional concept formation research, this paradigm examined the development of procedures for using rules, rather than rule induction. College-student subjects learned to use causal rules describing digital logic gates, receiving instruction with either verbal rules or truth tables, and practicing either predicting or verifying logic-gate outputs. After 200 trials of practice with each rule, subjects were transferred to the untrained judgment task. Transfer was strongly asymmetrical. Subjects trained to make prediction judgments were slowed substantially by transfer to the verification task, while subjects trained to make verification judgments had little difficulty with transfer to the prediction task. Truth-table representations resulted in superior performance, especially for verification judgments. Contrary to prediction, verification judgments always required more time. The results demonstrate that acquisition context may be partly responsible for judgmental asymmetries, and imply that examining conditions of acquisition is important for understanding how causal knowledge is used.     

On the relation between representations constructed from text comprehension and transitive inference production

Deductive inference production from texts is a process considered to involve either the construction of an integrated mental model or the step-by-step coordination of propositional representations of the sentences. These alternative hypotheses were tested in 3 experiments using a set inclusion task paradigm in which participants had to recall the premises and to evaluate transitive inferences. Contrary to what is known about linear ordering relations, order of recalls and reaction times provide evidence that the encoding of set inclusion relations does not result in an integrated representation. These results suggest that the mental models theory needs to take account of the nature of the relation to be represented if it is to become a general theory of reasoning.     

Desire for control and optimistic time predictions

Halkjelsvik, T., Rognaldsen, M. & Teigen, K. H. (2012). Desire for control and optimistic time predictions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 499–505. Few studies have investigated individual differences in time predictions. We report two experiments that show an interaction between the personality trait Desirability of Control and reward conditions on predictions of performance time. When motivated to perform a task quickly, participants with a strong desire for control produced more optimistic predictions than those with a weaker desire for control. This effect could also be observed for a completely uncontrollable task. The results are discussed in relation to the finding that power produces more optimistic predictions, and extend this work by ruling out some previously suggested explanations.     

Judgment dissociation theory: an analysis of differences in causal,counterfactual, and covariational reasoning

Research suggests that causal judgment is influenced primarily by counterfactual or covariational reasoning. In contrast, the author of this article develops judgment dissociation theory (JDT), which predicts that these types of reasoning differ in function and can lead to divergent judgments. The actuality principle proposes that causal selections focus on antecedents that are sufficient to generate the actual outcome. The substitution principle proposes that ad hoc categorization plays a key role in counterfactual and covariational reasoning such that counterfactual selections focus on antecedents that would have been sufficient to prevent the outcome or something like it and covariational selections focus on antecedents that yield the largest increase in the probability of the outcome or something like it. The findings of 4 experiments support JDT but not the competing counterfactual and covariational accounts.     

Causal Networks or Causal Islands? The Representation of Mechanisms and the Transitivity of Causal Judgment

Knowledge of mechanisms is critical for causal reasoning. We contrasted two possible organizations of causal knowledge—an interconnected causal network, where events are causally connected without any boundaries delineating discrete mechanisms; or a set of disparate mechanisms—causal islands—such that events in different mechanisms are not thought to be related even when they belong to the same causal chain. To distinguish these possibilities, we tested whether people make transitive judgments about causal chains by inferring, given A causes B and B causes C, that A causes C. Specifically, causal chains schematized as one chunk or mechanism in semantic memory (e.g., exercising, becoming thirsty, drinking water) led to transitive causal judgments. On the other hand, chains schematized as multiple chunks (e.g., having sex, becoming pregnant, becoming nauseous) led to intransitive judgments despite strong intermediate links ((Experiments 1–3). Normative accounts of causal intransitivity could not explain these intransitive judgments (Experiments 4 and 5).     

Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task

Across cultures people construct spatial representations of time. However, the particular spatial layouts created to represent time may differ across cultures. This paper examines whether people automatically access and use culturally specific spatial representations when reasoning about time. In Experiment 1, we asked Hebrew and English speakers to arrange pictures depicting temporal sequences of natural events, and to point to the hypothesized location of events relative to a reference point. In both tasks, English speakers (who read left to right) arranged temporal sequences to progress from left to right, whereas Hebrew speakers (who read right to left) arranged them from right to left, replicating previous work. In Experiments 2 and 3, we asked the participants to make rapid temporal order judgments about pairs of pictures presented one after the other (i.e., to decide whether the second picture showed a conceptually earlier or later time-point of an event than the first picture). Participants made responses using two adjacent keyboard keys. English speakers were faster to make "earlier" judgments when the "earlier" response needed to be made with the left response key than with the right response key. Hebrew speakers showed exactly the reverse pattern. Asking participants to use a space-time mapping inconsistent with the one suggested by writing direction in their language created interference, suggesting that participants were automatically creating writing-direction consistent spatial representations in the course of their normal temporal reasoning. It appears that people automatically access culturally specific spatial representations when making temporal judgments even in nonlinguistic tasks.     

Relations as transformations: Implications for analogical reasoning

We present two experiments assessing whether the size of a transformation instantiating a relation between two states of the world (e.g., shrinks) is a performance factor affecting analogical reasoning. The first experiment finds evidence of transformation size as a significant factor in adolescent analogical problem solving while the second experiment finds a similar effect on adult analogical reasoning using a markedly different analogical completion paradigm. The results are interpreted as providing evidence for the more general framework that cognitive representations of relations are best understood as mental transformations.