We present a framework for the rational analysis of elemental causal induction – learning about the existence of a relationship between a single cause and effect – based upon causal graphical models. This framework makes precise the distinction between causal structure and causal strength: the difference between asking whether a causal relationship exists and asking how strong that causal relationship might be. We show that two leading rational models of elemental causal induction, ∆P and causal power, both estimate causal strength, and introduce a new rational model, causal support, that assesses causal structure. Causal support predicts several key phenomena of causal induction that cannot be accounted for by other rational models, which we explore through a series of experiments. These phenomena include the complex interaction between ∆P and the base-rate probability of the effect in the absence of the cause, sample size effects, inferences from incomplete contingency tables, and causal learning from rates. Causal support also provides a better account of a number of existing datasets than either ∆P or causal power.

Inducing causal relationships from observations is a classic problem in scientific inference, statistics, and machine learning. It is also a central part of human learning, and a task that people perform remarkably well given its notorious difficulties. People can learn causal structure in various settings, from diverse forms of data: observations of the co-occurrence frequencies between causes and effects, interactions between physical objects, or patterns of spatial or temporal coincidence. These different modes of learning are typically thought of as distinct psychological processes and are rarely studied together, but at heart they present the same inductive challenge—identifying the unobservable mechanisms that generate observable relations between variables, objects, or events, given only sparse and limited data. We present a computational-level analysis of this inductive problem and a framework for its solution, which allows us to model all these forms of causal learning in a common language. In this framework, causal induction is the product of domain-general statistical inference guided by domain-specific prior knowledge, in the form of an abstract causal theory. We identify 3 key aspects of abstract prior knowledge—the ontology of entities, properties, and relations that organizes a domain; the plausibility of specific causal relationships; and the functional form of those relationships—and show how they provide the constraints that people need to induce useful causal models from sparse data.

Address correspondence to

People routinely make sophisticated causal inferences unconsciously, effortlessly, and from very little data – often from just one or a few observations. We argue that these inferences can be explained as Bayesian computations over a hypothesis space of causal graphical models, shaped by strong top-down prior knowledge in the form of intuitive theories. We present two case studies of our approach, including quantitative models of human causal judgments and brief comparisons with traditional bottom-up models of inference. 1

The ability to derive predictions for the outcomes of potential actions from observational data is one of the hallmarks of true causal reasoning. We present four learning experiments with deterministic and probabilistic data showing that people indeed make different predictions from causal models, whose parameters were learned in a purely observational learning phase, depending on whether learners believe that an event within the model has been merely observed (“seeing”) or was actively manipulated (“doing”). The predictions reflect sensitivity both to the structure of the causal models and to the size of their parameters. This competency is remarkable because the predictions for potential interventions were very different from the patterns that had actually been observed. Whereas associative and probabilistic theories fail, recent developments of causal Bayes net theories provide tools for modeling this competency. Causal knowledge underlies our ability to predict future events, to explain the occurrence of present events, and to achieve goals by means of actions. Thus, causal knowledge belongs to one of our most central cognitive competencies. However, the nature of causal knowledge has been debated. A number of philosophers and

This chapter considers a set of questions at the interface of the study of intuitive theories, causal knowledge, and problems of inductive inference. By an intuitive theory, we mean a cognitive structure that in some important ways is analogous to a scientific theory. It is becoming broadly recognized that intuitive theories play essential roles in organizing

Several theories have been proposed regarding how causal relations among features of objects affect how those objects are classified. The assumptions of these theories were tested in 3 experiments that manipulated the causal knowledge associated with novel categories. There were 3 results. The 1st was a multiple cause effect in which a feature’s importance increases with its number of causes. The 2nd was a coherence effect in which good category members are those whose features jointly corroborate the category’s causal knowledge. These 2 effects can be accounted for by assuming that good category members are those likely to be generated by a category’s causal laws. The 3rd result was a primary cause effect, in which primary causes are more important to category membership. This effect can also be explained by a generative account with an additional assumption: that categories often are perceived to have hidden generative causes.

computation. In preparation. Address for correspondence:

We propose that similarity judgments are inferences about generative processes, and that two objects appear similar when they are likely to have been generated by the same process. We present a formal model based on this idea, and suggest that it may be particularly useful for explaining high-level judgments of similarity. We compare our model to featural and transformational accounts, and describe an experiment where it outperforms a transformational model.

www.elsevier.com/locate/cogpsych