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.

For over 200 years, philosophers and mathematicians have been using probability theory to describe human cognition. While the theory of probabilities was first developed as a means of analyzing games of chance, it quickly took on a larger and deeper significance as a formal account of how rational agents should reason in situations of uncertainty

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

In the previous chapter (Tenenbaum, Griffiths, & Niyogi, this volume), we introduced a framework for thinking about the structure, function, and acquisition of intuitive theories inspired by an analogy to the research program of generative grammar in linguistics. We argued that a principal function for intuitive theories, just as for grammars for natural

Probabilistic methods are providing new explanatory approaches to fundamental cognitive science questions of how humans structure, process and acquire language. This review examines probabilistic models defined over traditional symbolic structures. Language comprehension and production involve probabilistic inference in such models; and acquisition involves choosing the best model, given innate constraints and linguistic and other input. Probabilistic models can account for the learning and processing of language, while maintaining the sophistication of symbolic models. A recent burgeoning of theoretical developments and online corpus creation has enabled large models to be tested, revealing probabilistic constraints in processing, undermining acquisition arguments based on a perceived poverty

People learn quickly when reasoning about causal relationships, making inferences from limited data and avoiding spurious inferences. Efficient learning depends on abstract knowledge, which is often domain or context specific, and much of it must be learned. While such knowledge effects are well documented, little is known about exactly how we acquire knowledge that constrains learning. This work focuses on knowledge of the functional form of causal relationships; there are many kinds of relationships that can apply between causes and their effects, and knowledge of the form such a relationship takes is important in order to quickly identify the real causes of an observed effect. We developed a hierarchical Bayesian model of the acquisition of knowledge of the functional form of causal relationships and tested it in five experimental studies, considering disjunctive and conjunctive relationships, failure rates, and cross-domain effects. The Bayesian model accurately predicted human judgments and outperformed several alternative models.

Causal knowledge enables us to predict future events, to choose the right actions to achieve our goals, and to envision what would have happened if things had been different. Thus, it allows us to reason about observations, interventions and counterfactual possibilities.

People can apparently make surprisingly sophisticated inductive inferences, despite the fact that there are constraints on cognitive resources that would make performing exact Bayesian inference computationally intractable. What algorithms could they be using to make this possible? We show that a simple sequential algorithm, Win-Stay, Lose-Shift (WSLS), can be used to approximate Bayesian inference, and is consistent with human behavior on a causal learning task. This algorithm provides a new way to understand people’s judgments and a new efficient method for performing Bayesian inference.

Children learn causal relationships quickly, and make farreaching causal inferences on the basis of what they see. In knowledge to bear on their problems. This paper addresses children’s ability to acquire that knowledge. We present evidence that children can learn about the abstract properties of causal relationships using only a handful of events, and – consistent with a hierarchical Bayesian model of casual inference – children can be more sensitive to evidence than adults.

Previous work showed that people‟s causal judgments are modeled better as estimates of the probability that a causal relationship exists (a qualitative inference) than as estimates of the strength of that relationship (a quantitative inference). Here, using a novel task, we present experimental evidence in support of the importance of qualitative causal inference. Our findings cannot be explained through the use of parameter estimation and related quantitative inference. These findings suggest the role of qualitative inference in causal reasoning has been understudied despite its unique role in cognition. Further, we suggest these findings open interesting questions about the role of qualitative inference in many domains.