Generic Priors Yield Competition Between Independently-Occurring Causes

Recent work on causal learning has investigated the possible role of generic priors in guiding human judgments of causal strength. One proposal has been that people have a preference for causes that are sparse and strong—i.e., few in number and individually strong (Lu et al., 2008). Evidence for the use of sparse-and-strong priors has been obtained using a maximally simple causal set-up (a single candidate cause plus unobserved background causes). Here we examine the possible impact of generic priors in more complex, multicausal set-ups. Sparse-and-strong priors predict that competition can be observed between candidate causes even if they occur independently (i.e., the estimated strength of cause A will be lower if the strength of uncorrelated cause B is high rather than low). Experiment 1 revealed such a cue competition effect in judgments of causal strength. Experiment 2 showed that, as predicted by a Bayesian learning model with sparse-and-strong priors, the impact of the prior diminishes as sample size increases. These findings support the importance of a preference for parsimony as a constraint on causal learning.

[1]  N. Chater,et al.  Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Michael R. Waldmann,et al.  Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: Evidence from an overshadowing paradigm , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  D. Shanks Forward and Backward Blocking in Human Contingency Judgement , 1985 .

[4]  P. Cheng,et al.  Assessing interactive causal influence. , 2004, Psychological review.

[5]  P. Cheng From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. , 1997 .

[6]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Estimating human priors on causal strength , 2011, CogSci.

[7]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Structure and strength in causal induction , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Cue Competition Effects: Empirical Tests of Adaptive Network Learning Models , 1993 .

[9]  A. Yuille,et al.  Bayesian generic priors for causal learning. , 2008, Psychological review.

[10]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Causal learning and inference as a rational process: the new synthesis. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[11]  T. Lombrozo,et al.  Simplicity and probability in causal explanation , 2007, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Cue Competition Effects: Theoretical Implications for Adaptive Network Learning Models , 1993 .

[13]  Tom Beckers,et al.  A Review of Recent Developments in Research and Theories on Human Contingency Learning , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[14]  C. Carroll,et al.  Inferential dependencies in causal inference: a comparison of belief-distribution and associative approaches. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.