Weighting of contingency information in causal judgement: Evidence of hypothesis dependence and use of a positive-test strategy

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 62, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 2388-2408

  Mandel, David R ^a,b   Vartanian, Oshin ^a  

^a DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Causation; Contingency information; Hypothesis testing; Positive test strategy.; Prevention

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CAUSALITY; COGNITION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOM ALLOCATION; WEIGHTS AND MEASURES;

EID: 70449597488     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210902794148     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2. Anderson, J. R., & Sheu, C.-F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory & Cognition, 23, 510-524.
3. 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.
4. Busemeyer, J. R. (1991). Intuitive statistical estimation. In N. H. Anderson (Ed.), Contributions to information integration theory (Vol. 1), pp. 187-215
5. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Catena, A., Maldonado, A., & Cándido, A. (1998). The effect of frequency of judgment and the type of trials on covariation learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 481-495.
6. Catena, A., Maldonado, A., Perales, J. C., & Cándido, A. (2008). Interaction between previous beliefs and cue predictive value in covariation-based induction. Acta Psychologica, 128, 339-349.
7. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
8. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
9. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10. Crocker, J. (1982). Biased questions in judgment of covariation studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 214-220.
11. Cummins, D. D. (1995). Naive theories of causal deduction. Memory & Cognition, 23, 646-658.
12. Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., & Rist, R. (1991). Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory & Cognition, 19, 274-282.
13. Dennis, M. J., & Ahn, W.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory & Cognition, 29, 152-164.
14. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3-19.
15. Evans, J. St. B. T. (1998). Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years? Thinking & Reasoning, 4, 45-82.
16. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Handley, S. J. (1999). The role of negation in conditional inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 739-769.
17. Friedrich, J. (1993). Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: A reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena. Psychological Review, 100, 298-319.
18. Goldvarg, E., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Na?̈ve causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 565-610.
19. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 334-384.
20. Hattori, M., & Oaksford, M. (2007). Adaptive noninterventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science, 31, 765-814.
21. Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (2000). Judgment and decision making in social context: Discourse processes and rational inference. In T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes,& K. R.Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp. 651-676). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Inhelder, P., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
23. Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgments of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 79, 1-17.
24. Kao, S.-F., & Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1363-1386.
25. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
26. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
27. Levin, I. P., Wasserman, E. A., & Kao, S. F. (1993). Multiple methods for examining biased information use in contingency judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 228-250.
28. López, F. J., Shanks, D. R., Almaraz, J., & Fernández, P. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 672-694.
29. Mandel, D. R. (2003). Judgment dissociation theory: An analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual, and covariational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 419-434.
30. Mandel, D. R. (2005). Counterfactual and causal explanation: From early theoretical views to new frontiers. In D. R. Mandel, D. J. Hilton, & P. Catellani (Eds.), The psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 11-27). New York: Routledge.
31. Mandel, D. R., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 450-463.
32. 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.
33. Mandel, D. R., & Vartanian, O. (2006). Is the weighting of contingency data contingent on the hypothesis assessed? In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 2652). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. McKenzie, C. R. M., Ferreira, V. S., Mikkelsen, L. A., McDermott, K. J., & Skrable, R. P. (2001). Do conditional hypotheses target rare events? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 291-309.
35. McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel's paradox of confirmation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 360-366.
36. McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (2007). A Bayesian view of covariation assessment. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 33-61.
37. Newman, J., Wolff, W. T., & Hearst, E. (1980). The feature-positive effect in adult human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 630-650.
38. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2003). Optimal data selection: Revision, review, and re-evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 289-318.
39. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality:Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Perales, J. C., Catena, A., Shanks, D. R., & González, J. A. (2005). Dissociation between judgments and outcome-expectancy measures in covariation learning: A signal detection theory approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1105-1120.
41. Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 577-596.
42. Schustack, M. W., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 101-120.
43. Shaklee, H., & Mims, M. (1982). Sources of error in judging event covariations: Effects of memory demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2, 208-224.
44. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials. Memory & Cognition, 13, 158-167.
45. Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2005). Do we "do"? Cognitive Science, 29, 5-39.
46. Tversky, A.,&Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 49-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
47. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Payton, T., & Murphy, R. A. (2008). The impact of presentation format on causal inferences. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 177-194.
48. Ward, W. C., & Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 19, 231-241.
49. Wason, P. C. (1959). The processing of positive and negative information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 92-107.
50. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 129-140.
51. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273-281.
52. 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.
53. Wasserman, E. A., Kao, S.-F., Van Hamme, L. J., Katagiri, M., & Young, M. E. (1996). Causation and association. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Causal learning: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 208-264). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
54. Wasserman, E. A., & Shaklee, H. (1984). Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response- outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation. Memory & Cognition, 12, 270-286.
55. White, P. A. (2003a). Causal judgment as evaluation of evidence: The use of confirmatory and disconfirmatory information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 97-114.
56. White, P. A. (2003b). Making causal judgments from the proportion of confirming instances: The pCI rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 710-727.
57. White, P. A. (2004). Causal judgment from contingency information: A systematic test of the pCI rule. Memory & Cognition, 32, 353-368.
58. Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 82-111.
59. Yates, J. F., & Curley, S. P. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement. Acta Psychologica, 62, 293-302.