The impact of presentation format on causal inferences

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 177-194

  Vallée Tourangeau, Frédéric ^a   Payton, Teresa ^a   Murphy, Robin A ^b  

^a KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIANCE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 36248936672     PISSN: 09541446     EISSN: 14640635     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09541440601056588     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
2. Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Brase, G. L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1998). Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: The role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 3-21.
4. Buehner, M. J., Cheng, P. W., & Clifford, D. (2003). From covariation to causation: A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1119-1140.
5. Buehner, M. J., & May, J. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 865-890.
6. Cheng, P. C. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
7. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions of the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1-73.
8. De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., & Vandorpe, S. (2005). Evidence for the role of higher order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena. Learning and Behavior, 33, 239-249.
9. Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., & Evenden, J. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29-50.
10. Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 513-525.
11. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684-704.
12. Greville, W. J., & Buehner, M. J. (in press). The influence of temporal distributions on causal induction from tabular data. Memory and Cognition.
13. 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.
14. Pearce, J. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61-73.
15. Perales, J. C., & Catena, A. (2006). Human causal induction: A glimpse of the whole picture. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 277-320.
16. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
17. Sedlmeier, P. (2002). Improving statistical reasoning by using the right representational format. Paper presented at the sixth international conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa.
18. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 380-400.
19. Shaklee, H., & Tucker, D. (1980). A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events. Memory and Cognition, 8, 459-467.
20. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials. Memory and Cognition, 13, 158-167.
21. Smedslund, J. (1963). The concept of correlation in adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 4, 165-173.
22. Valle e-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., Drew, S., & Baker, A. G. (1998). Judging the importance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the power PC theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 65-84.
23. Ward, W. C., & Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 19, 231-241.
24. Wasserman, E. A., Dorner, W. W., & Kao, S. F. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 509-521.
25. White, P. A. (2003a). Causal judgment as evaluation of evidence: The use of confirmatory and disconfirmatory information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 491-513.
26. White, P. A. (2003b). Effects of wording and stimulus format on the use of contingency information in causal judgment. Memory and Cognition, 31, 231-242.