Color change as a causal agent revisited

American Journal of Psychology

Volumn 121, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 129-156

  Young, Michael E ^a   Falmier, Olga ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41549101624     PISSN: 00029556     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/20445447     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Beasley, N. A. (1968). The extent of individual differences in the perception of causality. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 399-407.
2. Bockenholt, U. (2004). Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: Identifying the scale origin. Psychological Methods, 9, 453-465.
3. Brunswik, E. (1947). Systematic and representative design of psychological experiments; with results in physical and social perception (Vol. 50). Oxford, England: University of California Press.
4. 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.
5. Bullock, M., & Gelman, R. (1979). Preschool children's assumptions about cause and effect: Temporal ordering. Child Development, 50, 89-96.
6. Chang, C.-Y. (1998). The effects of training on causal perception. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 40, 87-103.
7. Choi, H., & Scholl, B.J. (2006). Measuring causal perception: Links to representational momentum? Acta Psychologica, 123, 91-111.
8. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3-19.
9. Glymour, C. (2001). The mind's arrows. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3-32.
11. Gruber, H. E., Fink, C. D., & Damm, V. (1957). Effects of experience on perception of causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 89-93.
12. Guski, R., & Troje, N. F. (2003). Audiovisual phenomenal causality. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 789-800.
13. Hagmayer, Y., & Waldmann, M. R. (2002). How temporal assumptions influence causal judgments. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1128-1137.
14. Huemer, M., & Kovitz, B. (2003). Causation as simultaneous and continuous. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 556-565.
15. Keil, F. C. (2003). Folkscience: Coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 368-373.
16. Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 271-304.
17. Kladopoulos, C. N., Brown, B. L., Hemmes, N. S., & Cabeza de Vaca, S. (1998). The start-stop procedure: Estimation of temporal intervals by human subjects. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 438-450.
18. Kruschke,J. K., & Fragassi, M. M. (1996). The perception of causality: Feature binding in interacting objects. In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 441-446). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Kuhn, D., & Phelps, H. (1976). The development of children's comprehension of causal direction. Child Development, 47, 248-251.
20. Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). The advantage of timely intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 856-876.
21. Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 451-460.
22. Mendelson, R., & Shultz, T. R. (1976). Covariation and temporal contiguity as principles of causal inference in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 408-412.
23. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen. (Original work published 1946)
24. Powesland, P. F. (1959). The effect of practice upon the perception of causality. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 155-168.
25. Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case of impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 341-423.
26. Runeson, S., & Andersson, I. E. K. (2004). On two modes of apprehension. Ecological Psychology, 16, 37-44.
27. Schlottmann, A., & Shanks, D. R. (1992). Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 321-342.
28. Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139-159.
29. Shultz, T. R. (1982). Rules of causal attribution. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(1, Serial No. 194).
30. Shultz, T. R., Altmann, E., & Asselin, J. (1986). Judging causal priority. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 67-74.
31. Siegler, R. S. (1975). Defining the locus of developmental differences in children's causal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 512-525.
32. Stevens, S. S. (1961). The psychophysics of sensory function. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), Sensory communication (pp. 1-33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Subbotsky, E. (2004). Magical thinking in judgments of causation: Can anomalous phenomena affect ontological causal beliefs in children and adults? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 123-152.
34. Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Kemp, C. (2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 309-318.
35. Wasserman, E. A., & Neunaber, D. J. (1986). College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 15-35.
36. White, P. A. (2005). Visual impressions of interactions between objects when the causal object does not move. Perception, 34, 491-500.
37. Young, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 83-104.
38. Young, M. E., Rogers, E. T., & Beckmann, J. S. (2005). Causal impressions: Predicting when, not just whether. Memory & Cognition, 33, 320-331.