Rethinking Temporal Contiguity and the Judgement of Causality: Effects of Prior Knowledge, Experience, and Reinforcement Procedure

Time plays a pivotal role in causal inference. Nonetheless most contemporary theories of causal induction do not address the implications of temporal contiguity and delay, with the exception of associative learning theory. Shanks, Pearson, and Dickinson (1989) and several replications (Reed, 1992, 1999) have demonstrated that people fail to identify causal relations if cause and effect are separated by more than two seconds. In line with an associationist perspective, these findings have been interpreted to indicate that temporal lags universally impair causal induction. This interpretation clashes with the richness of everyday causal cognition where people apparently can reason about causal relations involving considerable delays. We look at the implications of cause-effect delays from a computational perspective and predict that delays should generally hinder reasoning performance, but that this hindrance should be alleviated if reasoners have knowledge of the delay. Two experiments demonstrated that (1) the impact of delay on causal judgement depends on participants’ expectations about the timeframe of the causal relation, and (2) the free-operant procedures used in previous studies are ill-suited to study the direct influences of delay on causal induction, because they confound delay with weaker evidence for the relation in question. Implications for contemporary causal learning theories are discussed.

[1]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[2]  D. R. Lehman,et al.  Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability. , 1998 .

[3]  D. Shanks,et al.  Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). , 2000, Psychological review.

[4]  David Hume A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects , 1972 .

[5]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Time, rate, and conditioning. , 2000, Psychological review.

[6]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Judging probable cause. , 1986 .

[7]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  JUDGMENT OF CONTINGENCY BETWEEN RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES. , 1965, Psychological monographs.

[8]  R. C. Oldfield THE PERCEPTION OF CAUSALITY , 1963 .

[9]  P. Reed Role of a stimulus filling an action-outcome delay in human judgments of causal effectiveness. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[10]  C. Gallistel Frequency, Contingency and the Information Processing Theory of Conditioning , 2002 .

[11]  D. C. Howell Statistical Methods for Psychology , 1987 .

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

[13]  M. Buehner,et al.  Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction , 2002 .

[14]  P. Cheng,et al.  A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  Patricia W. Cheng,et al.  Separating Causal Laws from Casual Facts: Pressing the Limits of Statistical Relevance , 1993 .

[16]  P. Cheng,et al.  Distinguishing Genuine from Spurious Causes: A Coherence Hypothesis , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Associative Accounts of Causality Judgment , 1988 .

[18]  P. Cheng,et al.  Causal induction: The power PC theory versus the Rescorla-Wagner model , 1997 .

[19]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Temporal Contiguity and the Judgement of Causality by Human Subjects , 1989 .

[20]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Causal inferences as perceptual judgments , 1995, Memory & cognition.