Causal judgments about empirical information in an interrupted time series design

References

• Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgements: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435–448. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.435
   Google Scholar
• Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learning and Motivation, 14, 381–405. doi: 10.1016/0023-9690(83)90024-3
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R., & Sheu, C.-F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory and Cognition, 23, 510–524. doi: 10.3758/BF03197251
   Google Scholar
• Blanco, F., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2013). Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency. Learning and Behavior, 41, 333–340. doi: 10.3758/s13420-013-0108-8
   Google Scholar
• Box, G. E., Jenkins, G. M., & Reinsel, G. C. (2008). Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and control (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Chatfield, C. (2004). The analysis of time series: An introduction (6th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.
   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
   Google Scholar
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section B, 55, 289–310. doi: 10.1080/02724990244000034
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, R. M., & Morey, R. D. (2013). Bayesian hypothesis testing for single-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 18, 165–185. doi: 10.1037/a0031037
   Google Scholar
• Dennis, M. J., & Ahn, W.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory and Cognition, 29, 152–164. doi: 10.3758/BF03195749
   Google Scholar
• Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3–19. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.3
   Google Scholar
• Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1–30. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3
   Google Scholar
• Greville, W. J., & Bühner, M. (2010). Temporal predictability facilitates causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 756–771. doi: 10.1037/a0020976
   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
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review, 116, 661–716. doi: 10.1037/a0017201
   Google Scholar
• Hagmayer, Y., Sloman, S., Lagnado, D. A., & Waldmann, M. R. (2007). Causal reasoning through intervention. In A. Gopnik, & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 86–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hattori, M., & Oaksford, M. (2007). Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 765–814. doi: 10.1080/03640210701530755
   Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135–163. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131634
   Google Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. (2004). The advantage of timely intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 856–876.
   Google Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 451–460.
   Google Scholar
• Lagnado, D. A., Waldmann, M. R., Hagmayer, Y., & Sloman, S. (2007). Beyond covariation: Cues to causal structure. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 154–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, H., Yuille, A. L., Liljeholm, M., Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2008). Bayesian generic prior for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955–984. doi: 10.1037/a0013256
   Google Scholar
• Maggin, D. M., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J., O'Keeffe, B. V., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R., & Lehman, D. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 269–285. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.3.269
   Google Scholar
• Matute, H. (1996). Illusion of control: Detecting response-outcome independence in analytic but not in naturalistic conditions. Psychological Science, 7, 289–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00376.x
   Google Scholar
• McCain, L. J., & McCleary, R. (1979). The statistical analysis of the simple interrupted time-series quasi-experiment. In T. D. Cook & D. T. Campbell (Eds.), Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings (pp. 233–293). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• McCormack, T., Frosch, C., Patrick, F., & Lagnado, D. A. (2015). Temporal and statistical information in causal structure learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 395–416.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204. doi: 10.1177/00224669070400040101
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 577–596. doi: 10.3758/BF03196807
   Google Scholar
• Rottman, B. M., & Hastie, R. (2014). Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 109–139. doi: 10.1037/a0031903
   Google Scholar
• Rottman, B. M., & Keil, F. C. (2012). Causal structure learning over time: Observations and interventions. Cognitive Psychology, 64, 93–125. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.10.003
   Google Scholar
• Steyvers, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., Wagenmakers, E. J., & Blum, B. (2003). Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Science, 28, 303–333.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• White, P. A. (2000). Causal judgement from contingency information: Relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgement. Memory and Cognition, 28, 415–426. doi: 10.3758/BF03198557
   Google Scholar
• White, P. A. (2003). Making causal judgments from the proportion of confirming instances: The pCI rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 710–727.
   Google Scholar
• White, P. A. (2004). Causal judgement from contingency information: A systematic test of the pCI rule. Memory and Cognition, 32, 353–368. doi: 10.3758/BF03195830
   Google Scholar
• White, P. A. (2006). How well is causal structure inferred from cooccurrence information? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 454–480. doi: 10.1080/09541440500264861
   Google Scholar
• White, P. A. (2015). Causal judgements about temporal sequences of events in single individuals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1009475
   Google Scholar