Non-Bayesian Inference: Causal Structure Trumps Correlation

Cognitive Science

Volumn 36, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1178-1203

  Bes, Bénédicte ^a   Sloman, Steven ^b   Lucas, Christopher G ^c   Raufaste, Éric ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian model; Causal explanations; Probability judgment

Indexed keywords

ANTICIPATION; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LEARNING; LIFE EVENT; METHODOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMETRY;

ANTICIPATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; CULTURE; EFFECT MODIFIER, EPIDEMIOLOGIC; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; KNOWLEDGE; LIFE CHANGE EVENTS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMETRICS;

EID: 84865858682     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01262.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ajzen, I. (1977). Intuitive theories of events and effects of base-rate information on prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 303-314.
2. Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573-604.
3. Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 271-280.
4. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
5. Crisp, A. K., & Feeney, A. (2009). Causal conjunction fallacies: The roles of causal strength and mental resources. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 2320-2337.
6. Dougherty, M. R. P., Gettys, C. F., & Thomas, R. P. (1997). The role of mental simulation in judgments of likelihood. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 135-148.
7. Fabre, J.-M., Caverni, J.-P., & Jungermann, H. (1995). Causality does influence conjunctive probability judgments if context and design allow for it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 1-5.
8. Fabre, J.-M., Caverni, J.-P., & Jungermann, H. (1997). Effects of event probability and causality on the conjunction fallacy. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 56, 106-111.
9. Fernbach, P. M., Darlow, A., & Sloman, S. A. (2010). Neglect of alternative causes in predictive but not diagnostic reasoning. Psychological Science., 21(3), 329-336.
10. Fernbach, P. M., Darlow, A., & Sloman, S. A. (2011). Asymmetries in predictive and diagnostic reasoning. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 140, 168-185.
11. Fernbach, P. M., & Sloman, S. A. (2009). Causal learning with local computations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 678-693.
12. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 354-384.
13. Hagmayer, Y., & Sloman, S. A. (2009). Decision makers conceive of themselves as interveners, not observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 22-38.
14. Hume, D. (1976). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
15. Kemp, C., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., Yamada, T., & Ueda, N. (2006, July 16-20). Learning systems of concepts with an infinite relational model. 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, MA.
16. Krynski, T. R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). The role of causality in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 430-450.
17. Lagnado, D. A., Waldmann, M. R., Hagmayer, Y., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Beyond covariation: Cues to causal structure. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 154-172). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
18. Lu, H., Yuille, A. L., Liljeholm, M., Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2008). Bayesian generic priors for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955-984.
19. Nozick, R. (1993). The nature of rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
21. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). Reasoning in explanation-based decision-making. Cognition, 49, 123-163.
22. Rehder, B. (2009). Causal-based property generalization. Cognitive Science, 33, 301-343.
23. Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406-415.
24. Sloman, S. A. (2005). Causal models: How we think about the world and its alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Sloman, S. A., & Hagmayer, Y. (2006). The causal psycho-logic of choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 407-412.
26. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, prediction, and search. New York: Springer-Verlag.
27. SPSS, Inc. (2001). The SPSS TwoStep Cluster Component: A scalable component enabling more efficient customer segmentation. Technical Report. Available at: http://www.spss.ch/upload/1122644952_The%20SPSS%20TwoStep%20Cluster%20Component.pdf. [accessed on may 23, 2012].
28. Suppes, P. (1970). A probabilistic theory of causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
29. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 153-160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 9, 293-315.
31. Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. (1994). Support Theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.
32. White, P. A. (2006). The causal asymmetry. Psychological Review, 113, 132-147.
33. Zhang, T., Ramakrishnon, R., & Livny, M. (1996). BIRCH: An efficient data clustering method for very large databases. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD conference on management of data (pp. 103-114). Montreal, Canada: ACM.