Abstract

Conjunctive causes are causes that all need to be present for an effect to occur. They contrast with independent causes that by themselves can each bring about an effect. We extend existing “causal power ” representations of independent causes to include a representation of conjunctive causes. We then demonstrate how independent vs. conjunctive representations imply sharply different patterns of reasoning (e.g., explaining away effects for independent causes as compared to exoneration effects for conjunctive causes). An experiment testing how people reason with independent and conjunctive causes found that their inferences generally matched the model’s prediction, albeit with some important exceptions. Rather than operating in a vacuum, causes frequently interact with other factors to produce their effects. For example, the conjunction of two or more variables is often necessary for an outcome to occur. A spark may only produce fire if there is fuel to ignite, a virus may only cause disease if one’s immune system is suppressed, the motive to commit murder may result in death only if the means to carry out the crime are available. Sometimes, conjunctive causes take the form of enablers. For example, the presence of oxygen enables fire given spark and fuel. In contrast, disablers interact with existing causes by preventing normal outcomes. Although the eight ball’s path to the side pocket may appear inevitable, it may be interrupted by an earthquake, a falling ceiling tile, or a spilled beer. The last 20 years has seen a growing interest in the role of causal knowledge in numerous areas of cognition. Many studies have investigated how causal relations are learned from observed correlations (Cheng, 1997; Gopnik et al.,

Citations