When is a cause the “same”? Incoherent generalization across contexts

REFERENCES

• Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147–149. doi: 10.3758/BF03334492
   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
• Baetu, I., Barberia, I., Murphy, R. A., & Baker, A. G. (2011). Maybe this old dinosaur isn't extinct: What does bayesian modeling add to associationism? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 190–191. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11000203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, A. G., Baetu, I., & Murphy, R. A. (2009). Propositional learning is a useful research heuristic but it is not a theoretical algorithm. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 32, 199–200. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09000879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, A. G., Berbier, M. W., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1989). Judgments of a 2 × 2 contingency table: Sequential processing and the learning curve. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 65–97.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, A. G., Murphy, R., Mehta, R., & Baetu, I. (2005). Mental models of causation: A comparative view. In A. J. Wills (Ed.), New directions in human associative learning (pp. 11–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Barberia, I., Baetu, I., Sansa, J., & Baker, A. G. (2010). Choosing optimal causal backgrounds for causal discovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2413–2431. doi: 10.1080/17470211003770904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buehner, M. J., & Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The power PC theory versus the RW model. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Buehner, M. J., Cheng, P. W., & Clifford, D. (2003). From covariation to causation: A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1119–1140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catena, A., Maldonado, A., & Cándido, A. (1998). The effect of the frequency of judgment and the type of trials on covariation learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 481–495.
   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
• Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 225–232. doi: 10.1080/17470210500370457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldvarg, E., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Naïve causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 565–610. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2504_3
   Web of Science ®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
• Hagmayer, Y., Sloman, S. A., Lagnado, D. A., & Waldmann, M. R. (2007). Causal reasoning through intervention. In A. Gopnik & L. Schultz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 86–100). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, H., & Ward, W. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 79, 1–17. doi: 10.1037/h0093874
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 451–460.
   PubMed 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. Schultz (Ed.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 154–172). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liljeholm, M., & Cheng, P. W. (2007). When is a cause the “same”? Coherent generalization across contexts. Psychological Science, 18, 1014–1021. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02017.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liljeholm, M., & Cheng, P. W. (2009). The influence of virtual sample size on confidence and causal-strength judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 157–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review, 107, 195–212. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.195
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick, L. R., & Cheng, P. W. (2004). Assessing interactive causal influence. Psychological Review, 111, 455–485. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2003). Normative and descriptive accounts of the influence of power and contingency on causal judgment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 977–1007. doi: 10.1080/02724980244000738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 577–596. doi: 10.3758/BF03196807
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2008). Driven by power? Probe question and presentation format effects on causal judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1482–1494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanks, D. R. (2002). Tests of the power PC theory of causal induction with negative contingencies. Experimental Psychology, 49, 81–88. doi: 10.1027//1618-3169.49.2.81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyvers, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Blum, B. (2003). Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Science, 27, 453–489. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2703_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., Drew, S., & Baker, A. G. (1998). Judging the importance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the power PC theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 65–84. doi: 10.1080/713755745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, P. A. (1998). Causal judgement: Use of different types of contingency information as confirmatory and disconfirmatory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 131–170. doi: 10.1080/713752269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, P. A. (2002). Perceiving a strong causal relation in a weak contingency: Further investigation of the evidential evaluation model of causal judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 97–114. doi: 10.1080/02724980143000181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, M., & Cheng, P. W. (1999). Why causation need not follow from statistical association: Boundary conditions for the evaluation of generative and preventive causal powers. Psychological Science, 10, 92–97. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar