Dual frames for causal induction: the normative and the heuristic

References

• Aarts, E., Verhage, M., Veenvliet, J. V., Dolan, C. V., & van der Sluis, S. (2014). A solution to dependency: Using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature neuroscience, 17, 491–496. doi:10.1038/nn.3648
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R., & Sheu, C.-F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory & Cognition, 23, 510–524. doi:10.3758/bf03197251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.104.2.367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church, R. M. (1989). The yoked control design. In T. Archer & L. G. Nilsson (Eds.), Aversion, avoidance, and anxiety: Perspectives on aversively motivated behavior (pp. 403–415). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428–433. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454–459. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241. doi:10.1177/1745691612460685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitelson, B., & Hitchcock, C. (2011). Probabilistic measures of causal strength. In P. M. Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 600–627). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 334–384. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattori, M. (2002). A quantitative model of optimal data selection in Wason's selection task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 55, 1241–1272. doi:10.1080/02724980244000053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattori, M. (2014). Figure and ground in thinking: The affirmation-negation asymmetry as a consequence of framing. Ritsumeikan Journal of Human Sciences, 636, 131–147.
   Google Scholar
• Hattori, M., & Oaksford, M. (2007). Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science, 31, 765–814. doi:10.1080/03640210701530755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattori, M., Over, D. E., Hattori, I., Takahashi, T., & Baratgin, J. (2016). Dual frames in causal reasoning and other types of thinking. In N. Galbraith, E. Lucas, & D. E. Over (Eds.), The thinking mind: A festschrift for Ken Manktelow. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, H. M., & Sainsbury, R. S. (1969). The development of stimulus control through differential reinforcement. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning. Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, H. M., & Sainsbury, R. S. (1970). Discrimination learning with the distinctive feature on positive or negative trials. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79, 1–17. doi:10.1037/h0093874
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54. doi:10.1037/a0028347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kao, S.-F., & Wasserman, E. 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 Cognition, 19, 1363–1386. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., Waldmann, M. R., Hagmayer, Y., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Beyond covariation: Cues to causal structure. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal leaning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 154–172). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, H., Yuille, A. L., Liljeholm, M., Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2008). Bayesian generic priors for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955–984. doi:10.1037/a0013256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel's paradox of confirmation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 360–366. doi:10.3758/BF03212994
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (2007). A Bayesian view of covariation assessment. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 33–61. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, J. W., & Gormezano, I. (1961). Yoked comparisons of instrumental and classical eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 552–559. doi:10.1037/h0044551
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oaksford, M. (2002). Contrast classes and matching bias as explanations of the effects of negation on conditional reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 8, 135–151. doi:10.1080/13546780143000170
   Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2003). Optimal data selection: Revision, review, and reevaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 289–318. doi:10.3758/BF03196492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Stenning, K. (1992). Reasoning with conditionals containing negated constituents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 835–854. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.4.835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, E. (1915/1958). Figure and ground. In D. C. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Readings in perception (pp. 194–203). Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell wahrgenommene figuren: Studien in psychologischer analyse [Visually perceived figures: Studies in psychological analysis]. Kobenhavn: Gyldendalske Boghandel.
   Google Scholar
• Schustack, M. W., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 101–120. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.1.101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2005). Do we “do”? Cognitive Science, 29, 5–39. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2901_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causaton, prediction, and search. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Elrbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Waldmann, M. R. (1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of leaning and motivation, Vol. 34: Causal leaning (pp. 47–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar