Reductionism and Antireductionism: Rights and Wrongs

Abstract: Scholars are divided as to whether reduction should be a central strategy for understanding the world. While reductive analysis is the standard mode of explanation in many areas of science and everyday life, many scholars consider reductionism a sign of “intellectual naïveté and backwardness.” This article makes three points about the proper status of antireductionism: First, reduction is, in fact, a centrally important epistemic strategy. Second, reduction to physics is always possible for all causal properties. Third, there are, nevertheless, reasons why we want science to discover properties and explanations other than reductive physical ones.     

Causation in a New Old Key

I argue (1) that it is not philosophically significant whether causation is linguistically represented by a predicate or by a sentence connective; (2) that there is no philosophically significant distinction between event- and states-of-affairs-causation; (3) that there is indeed a philosophically significant distinction between agent- and event-causation, and that event-causation must be regarded as an analog of agent-causation. Developing this point, I argue that event-causation's being in the image of agent-causation requires, mainly, (a) that the cause is temporally prior to the effect, (b) that the cause necessitates (is sufficient with necessity) for the effect. Causal necessity is explained as a derivative of nomological necessity, and finally, via a definition of the causal sentence connective, the logic of event-causation is shown to be a part of temporal modal logic.     

Framing Emotional Response

Framing studies typically are concerned with how people's opinions are affected by opposing ways of presenting, or framing, an issue or event. This paper investigates whether different frames also lead to different patterns of emotional response. Cognitive appraisal models of emotion suggest that frames can alter emotional reactions. An experiment compared students' emotional responses to versions of a newspaper article that emphasized underlying social conditions as the cause of the 1992 Los Angeles riots (situational frame) or emphasized irresponsibility and criminality on the part of the rioters (dispositional frame). Few systematic framing effects were found when examining whether respondents reported experiencing a particular emotion. However, consistent with recent work showing that predispositions mediate the effect of frames on opinion, frames altered the relationship between predispositions and emotion. Patterns suggestive of framing effects also emerged in an examination of the content of people's emotional reactions. The findings are consistent with the claim that framing affects emotional responses, reinforce the claim that framing effects depend on individual predispositions, and underscore the importance of accounting for the content of people's emotional responses in the study of emotion.     

因果错觉的实验研究

本研究分别从可控情境和不可控情境两方面探讨了在工具性条件反射中,人对因果关系的认知的特点。结果发现：1．在可控情境下。延迟反馈可能导致被试的因果错觉;2、在不可控情境下,被试同样表现出因果错觉：迷信和控制幻觉,并且这种现象具有一定的普遍性;3、提供恰当的外部线索能有效地帮助被试消除已经形成的因果错觉。     

说明文阅读中因果序列的表征

结合自定步调阅读与句子启动再认范式, 探讨说明文阅读过程中因果序列的表征问题。研究包括3个实验, 实验1的文本提供一个包括4个概念的因果链(如, A－B－C－D), 文本最后设置包含概念A或概念B或概念C的句子, 对概念D进行探测, 结果发现, 对于概念D的再认启动作用, 概念C＞概念B＞概念A; 实验2改变因果链的说明顺序, 使之与因果链本身次序不一致, 结果与实验1一致; 实验3的文本分别介绍两条独立的因果链(如A－B－C; D－E－F), 最后呈现包含概念A或概念D的句子, 对概念C进行探测, 结果发现, 包含概念A的句子理解启动了相关因果链, 使读者对随后呈现的概念C的再认反应加快。基于本研究结果, 结合相关研究, 本文尝试提出说明文文本表征的建构模式。     

How do 8‐month‐old infants recognize causality in object motion and that in human action?1

Abstract: In Experiment 1, 8‐month‐old infants were first habituated to the event in which a moving object collided with another behind an occluder, then they were shown the two test events with no occluder: the contact event, in which the two objects actually collided, and the non‐contact event, in which the second object started to move without contact with the first. The infants looked at both events for an equal amount of time. In Experiment 2, in which the first object was a human actor, however, infants looked at the non‐contact event reliably longer than the contact event. In Experiment 3, in which both objects were human actors stood face‐to‐back, infants looked at the non‐contact event longer, whereas in Experiment 4, in which human actors faced toward each other, infants looked at both events equally. In Experiment 5, in which the first actor told the second to go, 10‐month‐old infants looked at both events for an equal amount of time. These results suggest that 8‐ and 10‐month‐old infants appreciate different causal principles between objects and humans, and that, in doing this, they may acknowledge the possibility of communication between humans.     

Multiple causal pathways in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – Do emerging executive and motivational deviations precede symptom development?

The multiple causal pathways model on the etiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is well established. However, developmental implications of the model are not yet sufficiently analyzed. The model implies that critical neural and neuropsychological deviations from normative development precede secondarily developing ADHD symptoms. Cognitive, “cool” inhibitory control (CIC) and reward-related, “hot” functions (RRF) are regarded as neuropsychological basic deficits that indicate independent causal pathways. Both functions involve top-down control networks that undergo major normative developmental changes in the preschool period. We formalized the following assumptions in a path model: (a) CIC and RRF predict change in ADHD symptoms in the preschool period, (b) the reverse is not true, and (c) CIC and RRF independently contribute to this prediction. A community-based sample of 125 (71 boys) preschoolers was assessed at at age 4 and 5 years. At each assessment wave, CIC and RRF were measured by a battery of age-appropriate valid tasks. ADHD symptoms were measured by a clinical parent interview. Evaluation of model fit using manifest maximum likelihood parameter estimation clearly supported the hypothesized path model while controlling for gender of child and maternal education level. Thus, regarding the basic deficits of CIC and RRF, the results add evidence on the developmental implications of the multiple causal pathways model. Our findings point to the potential significance of these early emerging characteristics as indicators of risk and as targets for preventive interventions.     

儿童在因果知识领域内的选择性学习

儿童的选择性学习是目前认知发展领域的热点问题。儿童在因果知识领域内的选择性学习(即选择性因果学习)对于回答儿童如何获取知识这个经典问题具有重要意义。儿童的选择性因果学习表现在对他人解释的辨别、评估与采纳上。他们会主动向可靠的信息提供者寻求解释, 并在接收回答后表现出选择性跟进反应。对于他人的回答, 年幼儿童不仅能根据言语线索辨别出解释性陈述, 还能依据解释的结构特征选择更好的陈述加以采纳, 年长儿童甚至可以从不同模式的解释中灵活地学习更适宜的因果知识。未来研究应深入关注解释的其它特征在儿童选择性因果学习中的作用, 进一步探讨选择性因果学习的认知机制。     

Causal Models Drive Preference between Drugs that Treat a Focal versus Multiple Symptoms

This research examines the effects of causal beliefs on drug preference. In three studies, 374 undergraduate participants imagined that they suffered from a focal symptom and then indicated their preference between a drug claiming to treat only the focal symptom (single treatment) and a drug claiming to treat the focal symptom and a nonfocal symptom (dual treatment) they thought resulted from a common‐cause or from a different cause. Participants who thought that the symptoms resulted from different causes significantly preferred the single treatment drug more and the dual treatment drug less than participants who thought the symptoms resulted from a common‐cause. Process analysis yielded a significant mediation effect. Specifically, an individual's causal model determines preference by affecting the estimates of the potential gain and loss associated with using each drug. Participants who held a common‐cause model concerning the source of the symptoms thought they would be more likely to need the nonfocal treatment provided by the dual treatment drug and less likely to suffer from side effects when taking this drug, than those with a different‐cause model. The results demonstrate the influence of causal structure on judgment and choice. © 2017 The Authors Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Culture and Causal Cognition

East Asian and American causal reasoning differs significantly. East Asians understand behavior in terms of complex interactions between dispositions of the person or other object and contextual factors, whereas Americans often view social behavior primarily as the direct unfolding of dispositions. These culturally differing causal theories seem to be rooted in more pervasive, culture-specific mentalities in East Asia and the West. The Western mentality is analytic, focusing attention on the object, categorizing it by reference to its attributes, and ascribing causality based on rules about it. The East Asian mentality is holistic, focusing attention on the field in which the object is located and ascribing causality by reference to the relationship between the object and the field.