Representing causation

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 136, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 82-111

  Wolff, Phillip ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal learning; Causal models; Causation; Knowledge structures; Lexical semantics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; VISION;

BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33847665921     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.82     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Ahn, W., & Bailenson, J. (1996). Causal attribution as a search for underlying mechanisms: An explanation of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 82-123.
2. Ahn, W., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 199-225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Ahn, W., Kalish, C. W., Medin, D. L., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299-352.
4. Anderson, J. M. (1971). The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1971). Causality and determination. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Aronson, J. L. (1971). On the grammar of "cause." Synthese, 22, 414-430.
7. Avrahami, J., & Kareev, Y. (1994). The emergence of events. Cognition, 53, 239-261.
8. Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1996). Associative and normative accounts of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding a cause. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 1-46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9. Barbey, A., & Wolff, P. (2006). Causal reasoning from forces [Abstract]. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 2439). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
11. Bigelow, J., Ellis, B., & Pargetter, R. (1988). Forces [Abstract]. Philosophy of Science, 55, 614-630.
12. Bigelow, J., & Pargetter, R. (1990). Metaphysics of causation. Erkenntnis, 33, 89-119.
13. BNC Consortium. (2001). British National Corpus (BNC world ed., Version 2). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
14. Brown, D., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning. Instructional Science, 18, 237-261.
15. Buehner, M. J., & Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The power PC theory versus the Rescorla-Wagner model. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55-60). Ilillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Bullock, M., Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1982). The development of causal reasoning. In W. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 209-255). London: Academic Press.
17. Bunge, M. (1959). Causality: The place of the causal principle in modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Carter, R. J. (1976). Some constraints on possible words. Semantikos, 1, 27-66.
19. Cheng, P. W. (1993). Separating causal laws from casual facts: Pressing the limits of statistical relevance. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 30, pp. 215-264). New York: Academic Press.
20. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
21. Cheng, P. W. (2000). Causality in the mind: Estimating contextual and conjunctive causal power. In F. C. Keil & A. W. Robert (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 227-253). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In H. L. Roitblat & J.-A. Meyer (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognitive science (pp. 271-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1991). Causes versus enabling conditions. Cognition, 40, 83-120.
24. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
25. Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). A causal-power theory of focal sets. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 313-357). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Cohen, L. B., Amsel, G., Redford, M. A., & Casasola, M. (1998). The development of infant causal perception. In A. Slater (Ed.), Perceptual development: Visual, auditory, and speech perception in infancy (pp. 167-209). East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
28. Copley, B. (in press). Ordering and reasoning. The MIT working papers in linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Croft, W. A. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Davidson, D. (1980). The individuation of events. In D. Davidson, Essays on actions and events (pp. 163-180). Oxford. England: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1969)
31. Discreet. (2001). Discreet 3ds max (Version 4) [Computer software]. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Autodesk.
32. diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
33. Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
35. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3-19.
36. Fair, D. (1979). Causation and the flow of energy. Erkenntnis, 14, 219-250.
37. Fodor, J. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving "kill" from "cause to die." Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 429-438.
38. Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. (Eds.). (2001). The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
39. Gilden, D. L. (1991). On the origins of dynamical awareness. Psychological Review, 98, 554-568.
40. Glymour, C. (2001). The mind's arrows. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
41. Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231-262.
42. Goldvarg, E., & Johnson-Laird, P. (2001). Naive causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 565-610.
43. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Shulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3-32.
44. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 334-384.
45. Hagmayer, Y., Sloman, S. A., Lagnado, D. A., & Waldmann, M. R. (2006). Causal reasoning through intervention. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
46. Hagmayer, Y., & Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Simulating causal models: The way to structural sensitivity. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 214-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Hart, H. L., & Honoré, A. (1985). Causation in the law. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
48. Havok. (2001). Havok Game Dynamics (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Dublin, Ireland: Author.
49. Hecht, H. (1996). Heuristics and invariants in dynamic event perception: Immunized concepts or nonstatements? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 61-70.
50. Hubbard, T. L., & Ruppel, S. E. (2002). A possible role of naïve impetus in Michotte's "launching effect": Evidence from representational momentum. Visual Cognition, 9, 153-176.
51. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53. Joskowicz, L., & Sacks, E. (1991). Computational kinematics. Artificial Intelligence, 51, 381-416.
54. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-210). Cambridge, England: Cambridge-University Press.
55. Kaiser, M. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (1984). The development of sensitivity to causally-relevant dynamic information. Child Development, 55, 1614-1624.
56. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., Whelan, S. M., & Hecht, H. (1992). The influence of animation on dynamical judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 669-690.
57. Kruschke, J. K., & Fragassi, M. M. (1996). The perception of causality: Feature binding in interacting objects. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 441-446). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. Lagnado, D. A., Waldmann, M. R., Hagmayer, Y., & Sloman, S. A. (2006). Beyond covariation: Cues to causal structure. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
59. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60. Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1-40.
61. Leslie, A. M. (1994). ToMM, ToBy, and agency: Core architecture and domain specificity. In L. Hirschfield & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 119-148). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62. Levin, B., & Rapoport, T. R. (1988). Lexical subordination. In D. Brentari, G. Larson, & L. Macleod (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 275-289). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
63. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1994). A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics, 92, 35-77.
64. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization: Research surveys in linguistics series. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
66. Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556-567.
67. Lien, Y., & Cheng, P. (2000). Distinguishing genuine from spurious causes: A coherence hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 87-137.
68. Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological. Review, 107, 195-212.
69. Lombard, L. M. (1990). Causes, enablers, and the counterfactual analysis. Philosophical Studies, 59, 195-211.
70. Luhmann, C. C., & Ahn, W. (2005). The meaning and computation of causal power: Comment on Cheng (1997) and Novick and Cheng (2004). Psychological Review, 112, 685-692.
71. Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
72. Mandel, D. R. (2003). Judgment dissociation theory: An analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual, and covariational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 419-434.
73. Mandel, D. R., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 450-463.
74. Mandel, D. R., & Lehman, D. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 269-285.
75. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
76. McCloskey, M., & Kohl, D. (1983). Naive physics: The curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 146-156.
77. McCloskey, M., Washburn, A., & Felch, L. (1983). Intuitive physics: The straight-down belief and its origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 636-649.
78. Michotte, A. E. (1963). The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1946)
79. Michotte, A. E., & Thinés, G. (1991). La causalité perceptive [Perceived causality]. In G. Thinés, A. Costall, & G. Butterworth (Eds. & Trans.), Michotte's experimental phenomenology of perception (pp. 66-87).
80. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Reprinted from Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique, 60, 9-36, 1963)
81. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82. Norman, D. A., Rumelhart, D. E., & the LNR Research Group. (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman.
83. Oakes, L. M. (1994). The development of infants' use of continuity cues in their perception of causality. Developmental Psychology, 30, 869-879.
84. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
85. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnabitity and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86. Proffitt, D. R., & Gilden, D. L. (1989). Understanding natural dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 384-393.
87. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, 47-81.
88. Robertson, D. A., & Glenberg, A. M. (1998). Force dynamics in language and cognition [Abstract], In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.). Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1259). Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.
89. Runeson, S., & Frykholm, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person and action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 585-615.
90. Runeson, S., Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2000). Visual perception of dynamic properties: Cue heuristics versus direct-perceptual competence. Psychological Review, 107, 525-555.
91. Runeson, S., & Vedeler, D. (1993). The indispensability of pre-collision kinematics in the visual perception of relative mass. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 617-632.
92. Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge. New York: Simon & Schuster.
93. Salmon, W. (1994). Causality without counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science, 61, 297-312.
94. Salmon, W. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
95. Schank, R. C. (1972). Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 552-631.
96. Schlottman, A., & Shanks, D. R. (1992). Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 44(A). 321-342.
97. Scholl, B. J., & Nakayama, K. (2004). Illusory causal crescents: Misperceived spatial relations due to perceived causality. Perception, 33, 455-469.
98. Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 299-309.
99. Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Physical imagery: Kinematic versus dynamic models. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 433-464.
100. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 21, pp. 229-261). San Diego. CA: Academic Press.
101. Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani (Ed.). Syntax and semantics: Vol. 6. The grammar of causative constructions (pp. 1-40). New York: Academic Press.
102. Shultz, T. R. (1982). Rules of causal attribution. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(1, Serial No. 194), 1-51.
103. Siskind, J. M. (2000). Visual event classification via force dynamics. In Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (pp. 149-155). Austin, TX: AAAI Press.
104. Sloman, S. (2005). Causal models: How people think about the world and its alternatives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
105. Sloman, S. (2006, March). The meaning of cause and prevent: The role of causal mechanisms. Paper presented at the Symposium on Objects in Motion: How Cause Is Captured in Language and Thought at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore, MD.
106. Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2002). Counterfactual undoing in deterministic causal reasoning. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 828-833). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
107. Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2005). Do we "do"? Cognitive Science, 29, 5-39.
108. Sobel, D. M., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Children's causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 28, 303-333.
109. Spellman, B. A. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: Contingency judgments are made while controlling for alternative potential causes. Psychological Science, 7, 337-342.
110. Spellman, B. A., Kincannon, A. P., & Stose, S. J. (2005). The relation between counterfactual and causal reasoning. In D. R. Mandel, D. J. Hilton, & P. Catellani (Eds.), The psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 28-43). London: Routledge.
111. Spellman, B. A., & Mandel, D. R. (1999). When possibility informs reality: Counterfactual thinking as a cue to causality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 120-123.
112. Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber, & K. Peterson (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 293-337). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
113. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
114. Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Structure learning in human causal induction. In T. K. Leen, T. G. Dietterich, & V. Tresp (Rds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 13 (pp. 59-65), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
115. Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2003). Theory-based causal inference. In S. Becker, S. Thrun, & K. Obermayer (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 15 (pp. 35-42). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
116. Turnbull, W., & Slugoski, B. (1988). Conversational and linguistic processes in causal attribution. In D. Hilton (Ed.), Contemporary science and natural explanations: Commonsense conceptions of causality (pp. 66-93). New York: New York University Press.
117. Twardy, C. R., & Bingham, G. P. (2002). Causation, causal perception, and conservation laws. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 956-968.
118. Van Valin, R. D. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66, 221-260.
119. Verhagen, A. (2002). Interpreting usage: Construing the history of Dutch causal verbs. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 261-286). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
120. Verhagen, A., & Kemmer, S. (1997). Interaction and causation: A cognitive approach to causative constructions in modern standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 61-82.
121. Waldmann, M. R., & Hagmayer, Y. (2005). Seeing versus doing: Two modes of accessing causal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 216-227.
122. Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. L., & Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 174-188.
123. Wells, G. L., & Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 161-169.
124. White, P. A. (1999). Toward a causal realist account of causal understanding. American Journal of Psychology, 112, 605-642.
125. White, P. A. (2000). Causal judgment from contingency information: The interpretation of factors common to all instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1083-1102.
126. Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1-48.
127. Wolff, P., Klettke, B., Ventura, T., & Song, G. (2005). Expressing causation in English and other languages. In W. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, & P. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 29-48). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
128. Wolff, P., & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 276-332.
129. Wolff, P., Song, G., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Models of causation and causal verbs. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuval (Eds.), Papers from the Thirty-Seventh Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Main Session (Vol. 1. pp. 607-622). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
130. Wolff, P., & Zettergren, M. (2002). A vector model of causal meaning. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 944-949). Mahwah. NJ: Erlbau.