Indicators of causal agency in physical interactions: The role of the prior context

Persuasive Effects of Linguistic Agency Assignment and Linguistic Markers of Argumentation in Health Messages about an Emerging Sexually Transmitted Disease

Answering the call by some health communication researchers to give greater attention to message strategies at the level of word choices and sentence structures, this study examined how the linguistic marking of argumentative orientation and linguistic agency assignment affects young adults' reactions to an informational message about a sexually transmitted infection presented as a new emerging health threat. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of the four versions of a fact sheet defined by a 2 × 2 (agency assignment x marking of argumentation orientation) factorial design and thereafter completed a questionnaire. Results indicated that the assignment of agency to the virus (vs. human) increased the perceived severity of the health threat, perceived susceptibility to it, persuasiveness of the message, and safer sex intentions. The same outcomes occurred when the message was phrased with a high marking of the argumentative orientation rather than a low marking. These findings suggest that a better understanding of language variable effects can boost the efficacy of promotional health messages.

Encoding of event roles from visual scenes is rapid, spontaneous, and interacts with higher-level visual processing

A crucial component of event recognition is understanding event roles, i.e. who acted on whom: boy hitting girl is different from girl hitting boy. We often categorize Agents (i.e. the actor) and Patients (i.e. the one acted upon) from visual input, but do we rapidly and spontaneously encode such roles even when our attention is otherwise occupied? In three experiments, participants observed a continuous sequence of two-person scenes and had to search for a target actor in each (the male/female or red/blue-shirted actor) by indicating with a button press whether the target appeared on the left or the right. Critically, although role was orthogonal to gender and shirt color, and was never explicitly mentioned, participants responded more slowly when the target's role switched from trial to trial (e.g., the male went from being the Patient to the Agent). In a final experiment, we demonstrated that this effect cannot be fully explained by differences in posture associated with Agents and Patients. Our results suggest that extraction of event structure from visual scenes is rapid and spontaneous.

Agents and Patients in Physical Settings: Linguistic Cues Affect the Assignment of Causality in German and Tongan

Linguistic cues may be considered a potent tool for focusing attention on causes or effects. In this paper, we explore how different cues affect causal assignments in German and Tongan. From a larger screening study, two parts are reported here: Part 1 dealt with syntactic variations, including word order (agent vs. patient in first/subject position) and case marking (e.g., as ergative vs. non-ergative in Tongan) depending on verb type (transitive vs. intransitive). For two physical settings (wood floating on water and a man breaking a glass), participants assigned causality to the two entities involved. In the floating setting, speakers of the two languages were sensitive to syntactic variations, but differed in the entity regarded as causative. In the breaking setting, the human agent was uniformly regarded as causative. Part 2 dealt with implicit verb causality. Participants assigned causality to subject or object of 16 verbs presented in minimal social scenarios. In German, all verbs showed a subject (agent) focus; in Tongan, the focus depended on the verb; and for nine verbs, the focus differed across languages. In conclusion, we discuss the question of domain-specificity of causal cognition, the role of the ergative as causal marker, and more general differences between languages.

The modulation of causal contexts in motion processes judgment as revealed by P2 and P3

The evoked response potential (ERP) procedure was used to investigate the representation of motion processes in different causal contexts, such as the collision of two squares or the repulsion of two magnets with like poles facing. Participants were required to judge whether each movement was plausible according to the causal context depicted by the cover story. Three main differences after the movement of the second object were found. First, the amplitudes at 70-170ms (N1) and 170-370ms (P2) elicited by a no-contact condition were more negative than a contact condition in the square context, whereas larger N1 and more positive amplitudes at 370-670ms were elicited by a no-contact condition in the magnet context. Second, larger P2 and more positive amplitudes at 370-670ms were elicited by inconsistent direction relative to consistent condition in the square context, whereas smaller N1 and more positive amplitudes at 370-670ms were elicited by inconsistent direction in the magnet context. Finally, larger P2 and more negative amplitudes at 370-470ms were elicited by plausible conditions relative to implausible conditions in a square context, whereas larger N1 and more positive amplitudes at 370-670ms were elicited by plausible conditions in the magnet context. These results suggested that the conceptual knowledge with different causal contexts have distinct effects on the judgment of objects interactions.

Causal agency and the perception of force

In the Michotte task, a ball (X) moves toward a resting ball (Y). In the moment of contact, X stops und Y starts moving. Previous studies have shown that subjects tend to view X as the causal agent ("X launches Y") rather than Y ("Y stops X"). Moreover, X tends to be attributed more force than Y (force asymmetry), which contradicts the laws of Newtonian mechanics. Recent theories of force asymmetry try to explain these findings as the result of an asymmetrical identification with either the (stronger) agent or the (weaker) patient of the causal interaction. We directly tested this assumption by manipulating attributions of causal agency while holding the properties of the causal interaction constant across conditions. In contrast to previous accounts, we found that force judgments stayed invariant across conditions in which assignments of causal agency shifted from X to Y and that even those subjects who chose Y as the causal agent gave invariantly higher force ratings to X. These results suggest that causal agency and the perception of force are conceptually independent of each other. Different possible explanations are discussed.

How contrast situations affect the assignment of causality in symmetric physical settings

In determining the prime cause of a physical event, people often weight one of two entities in a symmetric physical relation as more important for bringing about the causal effect than the other. In a broad survey (Bender and Beller, 2011), we documented such weighting effects for different kinds of physical events and found that their direction and strength depended on a variety of factors. Here, we focus on one of those: adding a contrast situation that-while being formally irrelevant-foregrounds one of the factors and thus frames the task in a specific way. In two experiments, we generalize and validate our previous findings by using different stimulus material (in Experiment 1), by applying a different response format to elicit causal assignments, an analog rating scale instead of a forced-choice decision (in Experiment 2), and by eliciting explanations for the physical events in question (in both Experiments). The results generally confirm the contrast effects for both response formats; however, the effects were more pronounced with the force-choice format than with the rating format. People tended to refer to the given contrast in their explanations, which validates our manipulation. Finally, people's causal assignments are reflected in the type of explanation given in that contrast and property explanations were associated with biased causal assignments, whereas relational explanations were associated with unbiased assignments. In the discussion, we pick up the normative questions of whether or not these contrast effects constitute a bias in causal reasoning.