Contingency is an important cue to causation. Research shows that people unequally weight the cells of a 2 × 2 contingency table as follows: cause-present/effect-present (A) > cause-present/effect-absent (B) > cause-absent/effect-present (C) > cause-absent/effect-absent (D). Although some models of causal judgement can accommodate that fact, most of them assume that the weighting of information is invariant as a function of whether one is assessing a hypothesized generative versus preventive relationship. An experiment was conducted that tested the hypothesis-independence assumption against the predictions of a novel weighted-positive-test-strategy account, which predicts hypothesis dependence in cell weighting. Supporting that account, judgements of hypothesized generative causes showed the standard A > B > C > D inequality, but judgements of hypothesized preventive causes showed the predicted B > A > D > C inequality. The findings reveal that cell weighting in causal judgement is both unequal and hypothesis dependent.
BuehnerM. J.ChengP. W.CliffordD. (2003). From covariation to causation: A test of the assumption of causal power.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 1119–1140.
4.
BusemeyerJ. R. (1991). Intuitive statistical estimation.Contributions to information integration theory. AndersonN. H.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.1, 187–215.
5.
CatenaA.MaldonadoA.CándidoA. (1998). The effect of frequency of judgment and the type of trials on covariation learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 481–495.
6.
CatenaA.MaldonadoA.PeralesJ. C.CándidoA. (2008). Interaction between previous beliefs and cue predictive value in covariation-based induction.Acta Psychologica128, 339–349.
7.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review104, 367–405.
8.
ChengP. W.NovickL. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction.Psychological Review99, 365–382.
9.
ClarkH. H.ClarkE. V. (1977). Psychology and languageNew York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10.
CrockerJ. (1982). Biased questions in judgment of covariation studies.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin8, 214–220.
11.
CumminsD. D. (1995). Naive theories of causal deduction.Memory & Cognition23, 646–658.
12.
CumminsD. D.LubartT.AlksnisO.RistR. (1991). Conditional reasoning and causation.Memory & Cognition19, 274–282.
13.
DennisM. J.AhnW.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships.Memory & Cognition29, 152–164.
14.
EinhornH. J.HogarthR. M. (1986). Judging probable cause.Psychological Bulletin99, 3–19.
15.
EvansJ. St. B. T. (1998). Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years?.Thinking & Reasoning4, 45–82.
16.
EvansJ. St. B. T.HandleyS. J. (1999). The role of negation in conditional inference.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology52A, 739–769.
17.
FriedrichJ. (1993). Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: A reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena.Psychological Review100, 298–319.
18.
GoldvargE.Johnson-LairdP. N. (2001). Naïve causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning.Cognitive Science25, 565–610.
19.
GriffithsT. L.TenenbaumJ. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction.Cognitive Psychology51, 334–384.
20.
HattoriM.OaksfordM. (2007). Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis.Cognitive Science31, 765–814.
21.
HiltonD. J.SlugoskiB. R. (2000). Judgment and decision making in social context: Discourse processes and rational inference.Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. (2).. ConnollyT.ArkesH. R.HammondK. R.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press651–676.
22.
InhelderP.PiagetJ. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescenceNew York: Basic Books.
23.
JenkinsH. M.WardW. C. (1965). Judgments of contingency between responses and outcomes.Psychological Monographs79, 1–17.
24.
KaoS.-F.WassermanE. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19, 1363–1386.
25.
KelleyH. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution.American Psychologist28, 107–128.
26.
KlaymanJ.HaY.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing.Psychological Review94, 211–228.
27.
LevinI. P.WassermanE. A.KaoS. F. (1993). Multiple methods for examining biased information use in contingency judgments.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes55, 228–250.
28.
LópezF. J.ShanksD. R.AlmarazJ.FernándezP. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition24, 672–694.
29.
MandelD. R. (2003). Judgment dissociation theory: An analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual, and covariational reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General137, 419–434.
30.
MandelD. R. (2005). Counterfactual and causal explanation: From early theoretical views to new frontiers.The psychology of counterfactual thinking. MandelD. R.HiltonD. J.CatellaniP.New York: Routledge11–27.
31.
MandelD. R.LehmanD. R. (1996). Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71, 450–463.
32.
MandelD. R.LehmanD. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General127, 269–285.
33.
MandelD. R.VartanianO. (2006). Is the weighting of contingency data contingent on the hypothesis assessed?.Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. SunR.MiyakeN.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.2652).
34.
McKenzieC. R. M.FerreiraV. S.MikkelsenL. A.McDermottK. J.SkrableR. P. (2001). Do conditional hypotheses target rare events?.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes85, 291–309.
35.
McKenzieC. R. M.MikkelsenL. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel's paradox of confirmation.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review7, 360–366.
36.
McKenzieC. R. M.MikkelsenL. A. (2007). A Bayesian view of covariation assessment.Cognitive Psychology54, 33–61.
37.
NewmanJ.WolffW. T.HearstE. (1980). The feature-positive effect in adult human subjects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory6, 630–650.
38.
OaksfordM.ChaterN. (2003). Optimal data selection: Revision, review, and re-evaluation.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review10, 289–318.
39.
PearlJ. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inferenceCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
PeralesJ. C.CatenaA.ShanksD. R.GonzálezJ. A. (2005). Dissociation between judgments and outcome-expectancy measures in covariation learning: A signal detection theory approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition31, 1105–1120.
41.
PeralesJ. C.ShanksD. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review14, 577–596.
42.
SchustackM. W.SternbergR. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General110, 101–120.
43.
ShakleeH.MimsM. (1982). Sources of error in judging event covariations: Effects of memory demands.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition2, 208–224.
44.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials.Memory & Cognition13, 158–167.
45.
SlomanS. A.LagnadoD. A. (2005). Do we “do”?.Cognitive Science29, 5–39.
46.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty.Progress in social psychology. FishbeinM.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.1, 49–72.
47.
Vallée-TourangeauF.PaytonT.MurphyR. A. (2008). The impact of presentation format on causal inferences.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology20, 177–194.
48.
WardW. C.JenkinsH. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency.Canadian Journal of Psychology19, 231–241.
49.
WasonP. C. (1959). The processing of positive and negative information.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology11, 92–107.
50.
WasonP. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology32, 129–140.
51.
WasonP. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology20, 273–281.
52.
WassermanE. A.DornerW. W.KaoS.-F. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16, 509–521.
53.
WassermanE. A.KaoS.-F.Van HammeL. J.KatagiriM.YoungM. E. (1996). Causation and association.Causal learning: The psychology of learning and motivation. ShanksD. R.HolyoakK. J.MedinD. L.San Diego, CA: Academic Press34, 208–264.
54.
WassermanE. A.ShakleeH. (1984). Judging response–outcome relations: The role of response–outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation.Memory & Cognition12, 270–286.
55.
WhiteP. A. (2003a). Causal judgment as evaluation of evidence: The use of confirmatory and disconfirmatory information.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55A, 97–114.
56.
WhiteP. A. (2003b). Making causal judgments from the proportion of confirming instances: The pCI rule.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 710–727.
57.
WhiteP. A. (2004). Causal judgment from contingency information: A systematic test of the pCI rule.Memory & Cognition32, 353–368.
58.
WolffP. (2007). Representing causation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General136, 82–111.
59.
YatesJ. F.CurleyS. P. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement.Acta Psychologica62, 293–302.
