Distinguishing Between Causes and Enabling Conditions—Through Mental Models or Linguistic Cues?

The mental model theory of naive causal understanding and reasoning (Goldvarg & Johnson-Laird, 2001, Cognitive Science, 25, 565–610) claims that people distinguish between causes and enabling conditions on the basis of sets of models that represent possible causal situations. In the tasks used to test this hypothesis, however, the proposed set of models was confounded with linguistic cues that frame which event to assume as given (the enabling condition) and which to consider as responsible for the effect under this assumption (the cause). By disentangling these two factors, we were able to show that when identifying causes and enabling conditions in these tasks, people rely strongly on the linguistic cues but not on the proposed set of models and that this set of models does not even reflect people's typical interpretation of the tasks. We propose an alternative explanation that integrates syntactic and causal considerations.     

Bayesian inference for finite mixtures of generalized linear models with random effects

We present an hierarchical Bayes approach to modeling parameter heterogeneity in generalized linear models. The model assumes that there are relevant subpopulations and that within each subpopulation the individual-level regression coefficients have a multivariate normal distribution. However, class membership is not known a priori, so the heterogeneity in the regression coefficients becomes a finite mixture of normal distributions. This approach combines the flexibility of semiparametric, latent class models that assume common parameters for each sub-population and the parsimony of random effects models that assume normal distributions for the regression parameters. The number of subpopulations is selected to maximize the posterior probability of the model being true. Simulations are presented which document the performance of the methodology for synthetic data with known heterogeneity and number of sub-populations. An application is presented concerning preferences for various aspects of personal computers.     

潜在剖面分析在组织行为领域中的应用

以个体为中心的研究路径将各个变量看作是相互依赖的一个系统, 基于多项特征(变量)将被试分为多个子群体, 分析子群体的前因与影响。以个体为中心的研究路径理解更加直观、更贴近实践, 受到越来越多的关注。潜在剖面分析(latent profile analysis, LPA)是以个体为中心研究路径的典型分析技术。在总结归纳以个体与以变量为中心两种研究路径异同、LPA与传统以个体为中心的分析技术差异后, 系统梳理了LPA在组织行为学领域的应用主题, 并从研究主题选取、样本要求、理论使用、剖面数量确定等方面归纳了LPA应用的步骤与注意事项。最后, 提出了未来研究的方向。     

冲突对绩效的影响：个体、团队宜人性的调节作用

以往个体和团队冲突研究主要考察了个人特征或团队特征对冲突结果的影响, 而尚未充分关注冲突管理过程中个体特征与团队特征间的交互效应。基于个人-团队匹配理论, 本研究探讨了个体层面宜人性与团队层面宜人性异质性对团队中个体冲突(关系冲突、任务冲突)和工作绩效间关系的影响。基于来自64个银行服务团队(包含339名下属和64名主管)的多来源、多时点纵向数据, 本研究所得结果显示：(1)关系冲突显著负向影响工作绩效, 任务冲突对工作绩效的影响不显著。(2)个体宜人性能够显著减弱关系冲突对工作绩效的负面影响, 而增强任务冲突对工作绩效的正向影响。(3)关系/任务冲突、个体宜人性和团队宜人性异质性间存在着三重交互效应, 共同影响工作绩效。具体而言, 当团队宜人性异质性水平较低时, 个体宜人性对关系/任务冲突与工作绩效间关系的调节作用更加显著。     

Time and Singular Causation—A Computational Model

Causal queries about singular cases, which inquire whether specific events were causally connected, are prevalent in daily life and important in professional disciplines such as the law, medicine, or engineering. Because causal links cannot be directly observed, singular causation judgments require an assessment of whether a co-occurrence of two events c and e was causal or simply coincidental. How can this decision be made? Building on previous work by Cheng and Novick (2005) and Stephan and Waldmann (2018), we propose a computational model that combines information about the causal strengths of the potential causes with information about their temporal relations to derive answers to singular causation queries. The relative causal strengths of the potential cause factors are relevant because weak causes are more likely to fail to generate effects than strong causes. But even a strong cause factor does not necessarily need to be causal in a singular case because it could have been preempted by an alternative cause. We here show how information about causal strength and about two different temporal parameters, the potential causes' onset times and their causal latencies, can be formalized and integrated into a computational account of singular causation. Four experiments are presented in which we tested the validity of the model. The results showed that people integrate the different types of information as predicted by the new model.     

Realism in energy transition processes: an example from Bohmian quantum mechanics

In this paper we study in details a system of two weakly coupled harmonic oscillators from the point of view of Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. This system may be viewed as a simple model for the interaction between a photon and a photodetector. We obtain exact solutions for the general case. We then compute approximate solutions for the case where one oscillator is initially in its first excited state (a single photon) reaching the other oscillator in its ground state (the photodetector). The approximate solutions represent the state of both oscillators after the interaction, which is not an eigenstate of the individual hamiltonians for each oscillator, and therefore the energies for each oscillator do not exist in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. We use the approximate solutions that we obtained to compute Bohmian trajectories and to study the energy transfer between the oscillators. We conclude that, even using the Bohmian view, the energy of each individual oscillator is not well defined, as the nonlocal quantum potential is not negligible even after the coupling is turned off.     

Structural equations and causation

Structural equations have become increasingly popular in recent years as tools for understanding causation. But standard structural equations approaches to causation face deep problems. The most philosophically interesting of these consists in their failure to incorporate a distinction between default states of an object or system, and deviations therefrom. Exploring this problem, and how to fix it, helps to illuminate the central role this distinction plays in our causal thinking.

Compound cue processing within the fast and frugal heuristics approach in nonlinearly separable environments

Three experiments investigated whether participants used Take The Best (TTB) Configural, a fast and frugal heuristic that processes configurations of cues when making inferences concerning which of two alternatives has a higher criterion value. Participants were presented with a compound cue that was nonlinearly separable from its elements. The compound was highly valid in Experiments 1 and 2, but invalid in Experiment 3. Participants’ causal mental models were manipulated via instructions: participants were either told that cues acted through the same causal mechanism (configural causal model), through different causal mechanisms (elemental causal model), or the causal mechanisms were not specified (neutral causal model). A high percentage of participants used TTB-Configural when they had a configural causal model and a highly valid compound existed, suggesting that causal knowledge can be incorporated in otherwise very basic cognitive mechanisms to allow fine-grained adaptation to complex task structures.     

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.     

Priming interdependence affects processing of context information in causal inference—But not how you might think

Cultural mindset is related to performance on a variety of cognitive tasks. In particular, studies of both chronic and situationally-primed mindsets show that individuals with a relatively interdependent mindset (i.e., an emphasis on relationships and connections among individuals) are more sensitive to background contextual information than individuals with a more independent mindset. Two experiments tested whether priming cultural mindset would affect sensitivity to background causes in a contingency learning and causal inference task. Participants were primed (either independent or interdependent), and then saw complete contingency information on each of 12 trials for two cover stories in Experiment 1 (hiking causing skin rashes, severed brakes causing wrecked cars) and two additional cover stories in Experiment 2 (school deadlines causing stress, fertilizers causing plant growth). We expected that relative to independent-primed participants, those interdependent-primed would give more weight to the explicitly-presented data indicative of hidden alternative background causes, but they did not do so. In Experiment 1, interdependents gave less weight to the data indicative of hidden background causes for the car accident cover story and showed a decreased sensitivity to the contingencies for that story. In Experiment 2, interdependents placed less weight on the observable data for cover stories that supported more extra-experimental causes, while independents' sensitivity did not vary with these extra-experimental causes. Thus, interdependents were more sensitive to background causes not explicitly presented in the experiment, but this sensitivity hurt rather than improved their acquisition of the explicitly-presented contingency information.