Valuing intervention and observation

Abstract

Understanding causal relations is fundamental to effective action but causal data can be confounded. We examined the value that participants placed on data derived from a hypothetical intervention or observation. Our materials involved a possible cause (“bottled water”), a possible confound (“food”), and a context (“a restaurant”). We supposed that participants seek to draw as specific a causal inference as possible from presented data and value information sources more highly that allow them to do so. On this basis, we predicted that in circumstances where an intervention removed the confounding causal factor but observation did not, participants would prefer data derived from an intervention when the possible cause was present (the bottled water was drunk) but show the reverse preference when the possible cause was absent (the bottled water was not drunk). Experiment 1 confirmed this prediction. Using a between-subjects design, Experiment 2 tested for a difference in confidence in causal judgements given identical data, including data on the confound, as a function of method of data collection (intervention or observation). There was no significant difference in confidence ratings between the two methods but confidence ratings were sensitive to the probability of an effect (illness) given the cause. Using a within-subjects design, Experiment 3 revealed systematic individual differences in preference for the two methods. Participants were divided between those who considered intervention more confounded and those who considered observation more confounded. Our experiments point to the subtleties of participants' evaluation of data from studies of human beings.

Keywords:

• Causal inference
• Contingency table
• Intervention

Acknowledgments

We thank Mike Oaksford, Marc Buehner, and David Lagnado for useful discussions and the Associate Editor and anonymous referees for constructive comments. A preliminary account of some of these data was presented to the 5th International Conference on Thinking (Leuven, July 2004) in the Symposium on Causal Reasoning and Causal Decision-Making, and we thank the participants for their useful comments.