Launching at a distance: The effect of spatial markers

Abstract

It has been widely reported that spatial contiguity is important to judgements of causality involving one object launching another [Michotte's “launching effect” (1963, 1991)]. The present study examined the impact of different types of spatial markers on causal judgements of a distal launch (one object approaching other, stopping short of it, and the second object subsequently moving along the same trajectory). The spatial markers were objects that either partially or completely bridged the spatial gap between two objects (Experiment 1), or they were dashed lines that marked the stopping location of the first object or the starting location of the second object (Experiment 2). The presence of either objects or dashed lines could produce higher causal ratings, but the location of the marker mattered. The results suggest that altering a cause's ability to predict when the effect would occur (via a spatial marker) and the presence of a conduit for energy transmission have independent effects on causal judgements of object interaction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berzonsky

M. D.

(1971). The role of familiarity in children's explanations of physical causality. Child Development 42, 705–715.

Buehner

M. J.

May

(2002). Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction. Thinking and Reasoning 8, 269–295.

Buehner

M. J.

May

(2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 56A, 865–890.

Gilden

D. L.

(1991). On the origins of dynamical awareness. Psychological Review 98, 554–568.

Gruber

H. E.

Fink

C. D.

Damm

(1957). Effects of experience on perception of causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology 53, 89–93.

Hagmayer

Waldmann

M. R.

(2002). How temporal assumptions influence causal judgments. Memory and Cognition 30, 1128–1137.

Hubbard

T. L.

Favretto

(2003). Naive impetus and Michotte's “tool effect”: Evidence from representational momentum. Psychological Research 67, 134–152.

Hume

(1969). A treatise of human nature New York: Penguin Books (Original work published 1739).

Kaiser

M. K.

Proffitt

D. R.

(1987). Observers' sensitivity to dynamic anomalies in collisions. Perception and Psychophysics 42, 275–280.

10.

Keil

F. C.

(2003). Folkscience: Coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 368–373.

11.

Michotte

(1963). The perception of causality London: Methuen (Original work published 1946) (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, Trans.).

12.

Michotte

(1991). The perception of the “tool effect”. Michotte's experimental phenomenology of perception. Thinés

Costall

Butterworth

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 87–103(Original work published 1951).

13.

Oestermeier

Hesse

F. W.

(2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition 75, 65–104.

14.

Pazzani

(1991). A computational theory of learning causal relationships. Cognitive Science 15, 401–414.

15.

Rozenblit

L. R.

Keil

F. C.

(2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science 26, 521–562.

16.

Runeson

Juslin

Olsson

(2000). Visual perception of dynamic properties: Cue heuristics versus direct-perceptual competence. Psychological Review 107, 525–555.

17.

Schlottmann

Ray

E. D.

Mitchell

Demetriou

(2006). Perceived physical and social causality in animated motions: Spontaneous reports and ratings. Acta Psychologica 123, 112–143.

18.

Schlottmann

Surian

(1999). Do 9-month-olds perceive causation-at-a-distance?. Perception 28, 1105–1113.

19.

Shultz

T. R.

Mendelson

(1975). The use of covariation as a principle of causal analysis. Child Development 46, 394–399.

20.

Siegler

R. S.

(1975). Defining the locus of developmental differences in children's causal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 20, 512–525.

21.

Siegler

R. S.

Liebert

R. M.

(1974). Effects of contiguity, regularity and age on children's causal inference. Developmental Psychology 10, 574–579.

22.

Subbotsky

(2004). Magical thinking in judgments of causation: Can anomalous phenomena affect ontological causal beliefs in children and adults?. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 22, 123–152.

23.

Yela

(1952). Phenomenal causation at a distance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 4, 139–154.

24.

Young

M. E.

Falmier

(in press). Color change as a causal agent: Revisited. American Journal of Psychology.

25.

Young

M. E.

Rogers

E. T.

Beckmann

J. S.

(2005). Causal impressions: Predicting when, not just whether. Memory and Cognition 33, 320–331.