Confidence and gradation in causal judgment

Probabilistic causal reasoning under time pressure

While causal reasoning is a core facet of our cognitive abilities, its time-course has not received proper attention. As the duration of reasoning might prove crucial in understanding the underlying cognitive processes, we asked participants in two experiments to make probabilistic causal inferences while manipulating time pressure. We found that participants are less accurate under time pressure, a speed-accuracy-tradeoff, and that they respond more conservatively. Surprisingly, two other persistent reasoning errors-Markov violations and failures to explain away-appeared insensitive to time pressure. These observations seem related to confidence: Conservative inferences were associated with low confidence, whereas Markov violations and failures to explain were not. These findings challenge existing theories that predict an association between time pressure and all causal reasoning errors including conservatism. Our findings suggest that these errors should not be attributed to a single cognitive mechanism and emphasize that causal judgements are the result of multiple processes.

The Bayesian Mutation Sampler Explains Distributions of Causal Judgments

One consistent finding in the causal reasoning literature is that causal judgments are rather variable. In particular, distributions of probabilistic causal judgments tend not to be normal and are often not centered on the normative response. As an explanation for these response distributions, we propose that people engage in 'mutation sampling' when confronted with a causal query and integrate this information with prior information about that query. The Mutation Sampler model (Davis & Rehder, 2020) posits that we approximate probabilities using a sampling process, explaining the average responses of participants on a wide variety of tasks. Careful analysis, however, shows that its predicted response distributions do not match empirical distributions. We develop the Bayesian Mutation Sampler (BMS) which extends the original model by incorporating the use of generic prior distributions. We fit the BMS to experimental data and find that, in addition to average responses, the BMS explains multiple distributional phenomena including the moderate conservatism of the bulk of responses, the lack of extreme responses, and spikes of responses at 50%.

Double Prevention, Causal Judgments, and Counterfactuals

Mike accidentally knocked against a bottle. Seeing that the bottle was about to fall, Jack was just about to catch it when Peter accidentally knocked against him, making Jack unable to catch it. Jack did not grab the bottle, and it fell to the ground and spilled. In double-prevention cases like these, philosophers and nonphilosophers alike tend to judge that Mike knocking into the bottle caused the beer to spill and that Peter knocking into Jack did not cause the beer to spill. This difference in causal judgment is a difficult puzzle for counterfactual theories of causal judgment; if each event had not happened, the outcome would not have, yet there is a difference in people's causal judgments. In four experiments and three supplemental experiments, we confirm this difference in causal judgments. We also show that differences in people's counterfactual thinking can explain this difference in their causal judgments and that recent counterfactual models of causal judgment can account for these patterns. We discuss these results in relation to work on counterfactual thinking and causal modeling.