Abstract
When many events contributed to an outcome, people consistently judge some more causal than others, based in part on the prior probabilities of those events. For instance, when a tree bursts into flames, people judge the lightning strike more of a cause than the presence of oxygen in the air—in part because oxygen is so common, and lightning strikes are so rare. These effects, which play a major role in several prominent theories of token causation, have largely been studied through qualitative manipulations of the prior probabilities. Yet, there is good reason to think that people’s causal judgments are on a continuum—and relatively little is known about how these judgments vary quantitatively as the prior probabilities change. In this paper, we measure people’s causal judgment across parametric manipulations of the prior probabilities of antecedent events. Our experiments replicate previous qualitative findings, and also reveal several novel patterns that are not well-described by existing theories.
Highlights
IntroductionPeople commonly ask: What caused that? Making causal judgments is often deceptively easy
When something happens, people commonly ask: What caused that? Making causal judgments is often deceptively easy
We naturally conclude that the lightning strike caused the forest fire; the last-minute goal caused the sports team’s victory; or the scandal caused the political candidate’s defeat
Summary
People commonly ask: What caused that? Making causal judgments is often deceptively easy. We naturally conclude that the lightning strike caused the forest fire; the last-minute goal caused the sports team’s victory; or the scandal caused the political candidate’s defeat These kinds of causal judgments are very important, structuring how we understand and interact with our environments. It is less natural to conclude that the forest fire was caused by the presence of oxygen, or by the lack of rain, or by the arsonist’s birth, even though the all of these events were necessary for the fire to happen This phenomenon is widespread: When an outcome occurs, people consistently judge certain seemingly-relevant events more causal than others [1,2,3,4].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
