Findings in recent research on the `conjunction fallacy ' have been taken as evidence that our minds are not designed to work by the rules of probability. This conclusion springs from the idea that norms should be content-blind Ð in the present case, the assumption that sound reasoning requires following the conjunction rule of probability theory. But content-blind norms overlook some of the intelligent ways in which humans deal with uncertainty, for instance, when drawing semantic and pragmatic inferences. In a series of studies, we ®rst show that people infer nonmathematical meanings of the polysemous term `probability' in the classic Linda conjunction problem. We then demonstrate that one can design contexts in which people infer mathematical meanings of the term and are therefore more likely to conform to the conjunction rule. Finally, we report evidence that the term `frequency ' narrows the spectrum of possible interpretations of `probability ' down to its mathematical meanings, and that this fact Ð rather than the presence or absence of `extensional cues ' Ð accounts for the low proportion of violations of the conjunction rule when people are asked for

Abstract. I argue that psychologists interested in human causal judgment should understand and adopt a representation of causal mechanisms by directed graphs that encode conditional independence (screening off) relations. I illustrate the benefits of that representation, now widely used in computer science and increasingly in statistics, by (i) showing that a dispute in psychology between ‘mechanist’ and ‘associationist ’ psychological theories of causation rests on a false and confused dichotomy; (ii) showing that a recent, much-cited experiment, purporting to show that human subjects, incorrectly let large causes ‘overshadow ’ small causes, misrepresents the most likely, and warranted, causal explanation available to the subjects, in the light of which their responses were normative; (iii) showing how a recent psychological theory (due to P. Cheng) of human judgment of causal power can be considerably generalized: and (iv) suggesting a range of possible experiments comparing human and computer abilities to extract causal information from associations.

The rationality of human causal judgments has been the focus of a great deal of recent research. We argue against two major trends in this research, and for a quite different way of thinking about causal mechanisms and probabilistic data. Our position rejects a false dichotomy between "mechanistic " and "probabilistic " analyses of causal inference-- a dichotomy that both overlooks the nature of the evidence that supports the induction of mechanisms and misses some important probabilistic implications of mechanisms. This dichotomy has obscured an alternative conception of causal learning: for discrete events, a central adaptive task is to induce causal mechanisms in the environment from probabilistic data and prior knowledge. Viewed from this perspective, it is apparent that the probabilistic norms assumed in the human causal judgment literature often do not map onto the mechanisms generating the probabilities. Our alternative conception of causal judgment is more congruent with both scientific uses of the notion of causation and observed causal judgments of untutored reasoners. We illustrate some of the relevant variables under this conception, using a framework for causal representation now widely adopted in computer science and, increasingly, in statistics. We also review the formulation and evidence for a theory of human causal induction (Cheng, 1997) that adopts this alternative conception. 1. The Old Mechanism Approach A long and still popular tradition in the study of human causal reasoning insists on a dramatic bifurcation between "mechanistic " conceptions of causalGlymour & Cheng inference and "probabilistic " or "covariational " conceptions of this process (e.g., Ahn

The dynamics model, which is based on L. Talmy’s (1988) theory of force dynamics, characterizes causation as a pattern of forces and a position vector. In contrast to counterfactual and probabilistic models, the dynamics model naturally distinguishes between different cause-related concepts and explains the induction of causal relationships from single observations. Support for the model is provided in experiments in which participants categorized 3-D animations of realistically rendered objects with trajectories that were wholly determined by the force vectors entered into a physics simulator. Experiments 1–3 showed that causal judgments are based on several forces, not just one. Experiment 4 demonstrated that people compute the resultant of forces using a qualitative decision rule. Experiments 5 and 6 showed that a dynamics approach extends to the representation of social causation. Implications for the relationship between causation and time are discussed.

Research suggests that causal judgment is influenced primarily by counterfactual or covariational reasoning. In contrast, the author of this article develops judgment dissociation theory (JDT), which predicts that these types of reasoning differ in function and can lead to divergent judgments. The actuality principle proposes that causal selections focus on antecedents that are sufficient to generate the actual outcome. The substitution principle proposes that ad hoc categorization plays a key role in counterfactual and covariational reasoning such that counterfactual selections focus on antecedents that would have been sufficient to prevent the outcome or something like it and covariational selections focus on antecedents that yield the largest increase in the probability of the outcome or something like it. The findings of 4 experiments support JDT but not the competing counterfactual and covariational accounts. If causation is the cement of the universe, as the philosopher David Hume (1740/1938) put it, then it is fair to say that causal knowledge is the cement that binds together each person’s representational universe. Causal reasoning—the process that generates this glue—confers many functional advantages. In virtually every sphere of human interest, our abilities to learn and categorize

Theories typically emphasize affordances or intentions as the primary determinant of an object’s perceived function. The HIPE theory assumes that people integrate both into causal models that produce functional attributions. In these models, an object’s physical structure and an agent’s action specify an affordance jointly, constituting the immediate causes of a perceived function. The object’s design history and an agent’s goal in using it constitute distant causes. When specified fully, the immediate causes are sufficient for determining the perceived function—distant causes have no effect (the causal proximity principle). When the immediate causes are ambiguous or unknown, distant causes produce inferences about the immediate causes, thereby affecting functional attributions indirectly (the causal updating principle). Seven experiments supported HIPE’s predictions. Function is a central construct in cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive psychologists have shown that the categorization of an artifact depends not only on its physical properties, but also on its function (e.g., Barton & Komatsu, 1989; Keil,

Abstract. In this paper, a first step towards a computational model of the self-attribution of agency is presented, based on Wegner’s theory of apparent mental causation. A model to compute a feeling of doing based on first-order Bayesian network theory is introduced that incorporates the main contributing factors to the formation of such a feeling. The main contribution of this paper is the presentation of a formal and precise model that can be used to further test Wegner’s theory against quantitative experimental data. 1

Two experiments investigate the conjunction fallacy (judging that conjunctive probabilities are higher than the probabilities of the constituents). The conjunction fallacy was much less for P(E|C) tasks than for P(C|E) tasks. The results are explained in terms of the way people interpret the conditional probabilities. We argue that people prefer to reason from cause to effect (cause-to-effect reasoning heuristic), and for that reason, the instructions given for P(C|E) tasks were misinterpreted, resulting in apparent fallacy. In addition, we provide evidence showing that likelihood judgments are higher with more evidence (moreis -better heuristic).

Abstract not found