Stimuli were presented in which values of an outcome variable for a single individual were recorded over 24 time periods, and an intervention was introduced at one of the time periods. Participants judged whether and how much the intervention affected the outcome. Judgements were affected by manipulations of the temporal relation between the intervention and a gradual increase in values on the outcome variable, by the size of the increase, by the time taken for the increase to occur, and by variance in the preincrease data. Most results were predicted by a simple model in which the mean outcome value for the preintervention time periods is subtracted from the mean outcome value for the postintervention time periods, though there was also an effect of temporal contiguity that is not predicted by the simple model. This form of information, which is a kind of quasiexperimental design, is more representative of the kind of information generally available for causal judgement than the more commonly investigated binary variables in which the cause is either present or absent, and the outcome either occurs or does not; as such, it is more revealing of how causal judgements are made under the conditions that prevail in the world.
AhnW., KalishC. W., MedinD. L., & GelmanS. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299–352.
2.
AllanL. G. (1993). Human contingency judgements: Rule based or associative?Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435–448.
3.
AllanL. G., HannahS. D., CrumpM. J. C., & SiegelS. (2008). The psychophysics of contingency assessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 226–243.
4.
BoxG. E., JenkinsG. M., & ReinselG. C. (2008). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
5.
BühnerM. J., ChengP. W., & CliffordD. (2003). From covariation to causation: A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1119–1140.
6.
BühnerM. J., & MayJ. (2002). Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 269–295.
7.
BühnerM. J., & MayJ. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 865–890.
8.
BühnerM. J., & MayJ. (2004). Abolishing the effect of reinforcement delay on human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 179–191.
9.
BühnerM. J., & McGregorS. (2006). Temporal delays can facilitate causal attribution: Towards a general timeframe bias in causal induction. Thinking and Reasoning, 12, 353–378.
10.
ChatfieldC. (2004). The analysis of time series: An introduction (6th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.
11.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405.
12.
CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
13.
De HouwerJ. and BeckersT. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 289–310.
14.
De VriesR. M., & MoreyR. D. (2013). Bayesian hypothesis testing for single-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 18, 165–185.
15.
DickinsonA., ShanksD. R., & EvendenJ. L. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29–50.
16.
diSessaA. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.
GeddesL. (2008, October 18). ‘Roused from coma’ by a magnetic field. New Scientist, 8–9.
19.
GrevilleW. J., & BuehnerM. J. (2007). The influence of temporal distributions on causal induction from tabular data. Memory and Cognition, 35, 444–453.
20.
GriffithsT. L., & TenenbaumJ. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 334–384.
HattoriM., & OaksfordM. (2007). Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 765–814.
23.
HolyoakK. J., & ChengP. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135–163.
24.
JenkinsH. M., & WardW. C. (1965). Judgement of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79, 1–17.
25.
KotovskyL., & BaillargeonR. (1998). The development of calibration-based reasoning about collision events in young infants. Cognition, 67, 311–351.
26.
LagnadoD. A. & SlomanS. A. (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 451–460.
27.
LuH., YuilleA. L., LiljeholmM., ChengP. W., & HolyoakK. J. (2008). Bayesian generic prior for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955–984.
28.
MagginD. M., SwaminathanH., RogersH. J., O'KeeffeB. V., SugaiG., & HornerR. H. (2011). A generalised least squares regression approach for computing effect sizes in single-case research: Application examples. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 301–321.
29.
McCainL. J., & McClearyR. (1979). The statistical analysis of the simple interrupted time-series quasi-experiment. In CookT. D. & CampbellD. T. (Eds.), Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (pp. 233–293). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
McKenzieC. R. M. (1994). The accuracy of intuitive judgment strategies: Covariation assessment and Bayesian inference. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 209–239.
31.
MendelsonR., & ShultzT. R. (1976). Covariation and temporal contiguity as principles of causal inference in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 408–412.
32.
MichotteA. (1963). The Perception of Causality. New York: Basic Books.
33.
ParkerR. I., Hagan-BurkeS., & VannestK. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.
34.
PeralesJ. C., & ShanksD. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 577–596.
35.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations on the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In BlackA. H. & ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
36.
RottmanB. M., & KeilF. C. (2012). Causal structure learning over time: Observations and interventions. Cognitive Psychology, 64, 93–125.
37.
SchlottmannA. (1999). Seeing it happen and knowing how it works: How children understand the relation between perceptual causality and underlying mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 35, 303–317.
38.
ShanksD. R., PearsonS. M., & DickinsonA. (1989). Tempral contiguity and the judgement of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139–159.
39.
ShultzT. R. (1982). Rules of causal attribution. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47, 1–51.
40.
ShultzT. R., & KestenbaumN. R. (1985). Causal reasoning in children. In WhitehurstG. (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 2, pp. 195–249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
41.
SieglerR. S. (1975). Defining the locus of developmental differences in children's causal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 512–525.
42.
SieglerR. S., & LiebertR. M. (1974). Effects of contiguity, regularity, and age on children's causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 10, 574–579.
43.
WardW. C., & JenkinsH. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 19, 231–241.
44.
WhiteP. A. (1988). Causal processing: origins and development. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 36–52.
45.
WhiteP. A. (2006). How well is causal structure from co-occurrence information?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 454–480.
