A dual strategy account of individual differences in information processing in contingency judgments

References

• Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.435
   Google Scholar
• Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 34(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0081013
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(83)90024-3
   Google Scholar
• Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108(4), 441–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R., & Sheu, C.-F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory & Cognition, 23(4), 510–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197251
   Google Scholar
• Beckers, T., Vandorpe, S., Debeys, I., & De Houwer, J. (2009). Three-year-olds’ retrospective revaluation in the blicket detector task Experimental Psychology, 56(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.1.27
   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 & Behavior, 41(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-013-0108-8
   Google Scholar
• Blanco, F., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. (2011). Making the uncontrollable seem controllable: The role of action in the illusion of control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 1290–1304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.552727
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99(2), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.365
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196976
   Google Scholar
• Gagnon-St-Pierre, É, Doucerain, M. M., & Markovits, H. (2021). Reasoning strategies explain individual differences in social reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000852
   Google Scholar
• Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 620–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620
   Google Scholar
• Hattori, I., Hattori, M., Over, D. E., Takahashi, T., & Baratgin, J. (2017). Dual frames for causal induction: The normative and the heuristic. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(3), 292–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1316314
   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(5), 765–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701530755
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and human reasoning. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain, and cognitive development: Essays in honor of jacques mehler (pp. 85–102). The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109(4), 646–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.646
   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(6), 1363–1386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1363
   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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.451
   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(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.3.269
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, H. (2019). Reasoning strategy modulates gender differences in performance on a spatial rotation task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(12), 2870–2876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819867203
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., Brisson, J., Chantal, P.-L., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Interactions between inferential strategies and belief bias. Memory & Cognition, 45(7), 1182–1192. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0723-2
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., Brisson, J., & de Chantal, P.-L. (2015). Additional evidence for a dual-strategy model of reasoning: Probabilistic reasoning is more invariant than reasoning about logical validity. Memory & Cognition, 43(8), 1208–1215. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0535-1
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., Brunet, M. L., Thompson, V., & Brisson, J. (2013). Direct evidence for a dual process model of deductive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1213–1222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030906
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., Forgues, H. L., & Brunet, M. L. (2012). More evidence for a dual-process model of conditional reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 736–747. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0186-4
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., Trémolière, B., & Blanchette, I. (2018). Reasoning strategies modulate gender differences in emotion processing. Cognition, 170, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.012
   Google Scholar
• Matute, H. (1996). Illusion of control: Detecting response-outcome independence in analytic but Not in naturalistic conditions. Psychological Science, 7(5), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00376.x
   Google Scholar
• Matute, H., Blanco, F., Yarritu, I., Díaz-Lago, M., Vadillo, M. A., & Barberia, I. (2015). Illusions of causality: How they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 888. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888
   Google Scholar
• McCormack, T., Bramley, N., Frosch, C., Patrick, F., & Lagnado, D. (2016). Children’s use of interventions to learn causal structure. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.017
   Google Scholar
• Musca, S. C., Vadillo, M. A., Blanco, F., & Matute, H. (2010). The role of cue information in the outcome-density effect: Evidence from neural network simulations and a causal learning experiment. Connection Science, 22(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540091003623797
   Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning [Review of the book Bayesian rationality the probabilistic approach to human reasoning, by M. Oaksford & N. Chater]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000284
   Google Scholar
• Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196807
   Google Scholar
• Shanks, D. R. (1995). Is human learning rational? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 48A(2), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401390
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A. (1994). Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 742–758. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209259
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., & Markovits, H. (2019). Reasoning strategy vs cognitive capacity as predictors of individual differences in reasoning performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2005). A dual- process specification of causal conditional reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(3), 239–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780442000178
   Google Scholar
• Ward, W. C., & Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 19(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082908
   Google Scholar