Temporal predictability enhances judgements of causality in elemental causal induction from both observation and intervention

References

• Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(3), 147–149. doi: 10.3758/BF03334492
   Google Scholar
• Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learning and Motivation, 14(4), 381–405. doi: 10.1016/0023-9690(83)90024-3
   Google Scholar
• Allan, L. G., Tangen, J. M., Wood, R., & Shah, T. (2003). Temporal contiguity and contingency judgments: A Pavlovian analogue. Integrative Physiological and Behavior Science, 31(2), 205–211.
   Google Scholar
• Buehner, M. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2005). Causal learning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Handbook of thinking & reasoning (pp. 143–168). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buehner, M. J., & May, J. (2002). Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction. Thinking and Reasoning, 8(4), 269–295. doi: 10.1080/13546780244000060
   Google Scholar
• Buehner, M. J., & May, J. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A(5), 865–890. doi: 10.1080/02724980244000675
   Google Scholar
• Buehner, M. J., & May, J. (2004). Abolishing the effect of reinforcement delay on human causal learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section B, 57(2), 179–191. doi: 10.1080/02724990344000123
   Google Scholar
• Buehner, M. J., & McGregor, S. (2006). Temporal delays can facilitate causal attribution: Towards a general timeframe bias in causal induction. Thinking and Reasoning, 12(4), 353–378. doi: 10.1080/13546780500368965
   Google Scholar
• Caraco, T., & Lima, S. L. (1987). Survival, energy budgets, and foraging risk. In M. L. Commons, A. Kacelnik, & S. J. Shettleworth (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior (Vol. IV: Foraging, pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, S. H. (1965). Effects of delayed reinforcement in a concurrent situation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 8(6), 439–444. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-439
   Google Scholar
• Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.3
   Google Scholar
• Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. Psychological Review, 84(3), 279–325. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.279
   Google Scholar
• Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., Fairhurst, S., & Kacelnik, A. (1988). Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards. Psychological Review, 95(1), 102–114. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.1.102
   Google Scholar
• Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769–792. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769
   Google Scholar
• Greville, W. J., & Buehner, M. J. (2010). Temporal predictability facilitates causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 756–771. doi: 10.1037/a0020976
   Google Scholar
• Greville, W. J., Cassar, A. A., Johansen, M. K., & Buehner, M. J. (2013). Structural awareness mitigates the effect of delay in human causal learning. Memory & Cognition, 41(6), 904–916. doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0308-7
   Google Scholar
• Grice, G. R. (1948). The relation of secondary reinforcement to delayed reward in visual discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1037/h0061016
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51(4), 334–384. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.05.004
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). From mere coincidences to meaningful discoveries. Cognition, 103(2), 180–226. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review, 116(4), 661–716. doi: 10.1037/a0017201
   Google Scholar
• Killeen, P. R. (1968). On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11(3), 263–269. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-263
   Google Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). The advantage of timely intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(4), 856–876.
   Google Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 451–460.
   Google Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., & Speekenbrink, M. (2010). The influence of delays in real-time causal learning. The Open Psychology Journal, 3(2), 184–195. doi: 10.2174/1874350101003020184
   Google Scholar
• Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136. doi: 10.1257/jep.14.3.115
   Google Scholar
• Mongin, P. (1997). Expected utility theory. In J. Davis, W. Hands, & U. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of economic methodology (pp. 342–350). London: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Msetfi, R. M., Murphy, R. A., Simpson, J., & Kornbrot, D. E. (2005). Depressive realism and outcome density bias in contingency judgments: The effect of the context and intertrial interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(1), 10–22. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.10
   Google Scholar
• Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B(2), 139–159.
   Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2005). Do we “do”? Cognitive Science, 29, 5–39. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2901_2
   Google Scholar
• Sobel, D. M., & Kushnir, T. (2006). The importance of decision making in causal learning from interventions. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 411–419. doi: 10.3758/BF03193418
   Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2003). Theory-based causal inference. In S. Becker, S. Thrun, & K. Obermayer (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 15, pp. 35–42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldmann, M. R. (1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Causal learning (Vol. 34, pp. 47–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 53–76.
   Google Scholar
• Waldmann, M. R., & Hagmayer, Y. (2005). Seeing versus doing: Two modes of accessing causal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 216–227.
   Google Scholar
• Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(2), 222–236. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.2.222
   Google Scholar
• Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Determining whether causal order affects cue selection in human contingency learning: Comments on Shanks and Lopez (1996). Memory & Cognition, 25(1), 125–134. doi: 10.3758/BF03197290
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman, E. A., Chatlosh, D. L., & Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures. Learning and Motivation, 14(4), 406–432. doi: 10.1016/0023-9690(83)90025-5
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. L., & Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(1), 174–188.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, B. A. (1976). The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26(3), 441–449. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-441
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. E., & Nguyen, N. (2009). The problem of delayed causation in a video game: Constant, varied, and filled delays. Learning and Motivation, 40, 298–312. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2009.02.002
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. E., Rogers, E. T., & Beckmann, J. S. (2005). Causal impressions: Predicting when, not just whether. Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 320–331. doi: 10.3758/BF03195320
   Google Scholar