Abstract
Nearly every theory of causal induction assumes that the existence and strength of causal relations needs to be inferred from observational data in the form of covariations. The last few decades have seen much controversy over exactly how covariations license causal conjectures. One consequence of this debate is that causal induction research has taken for granted that covariation information is readily available to reasoners. This perspective is reflected in typical experimental designs, which either employ covariation information in summary format or present participants with clearly marked discrete learning trials. I argue that such experimental designs oversimplify the problem of causal induction. Real-world contexts rarely are structured so neatly; rather, the decision about whether a cause and effect co-occurred on a given occasion constitutes a key element of the inductive process. This article will review how the event-parsing aspect of causal induction has been and could be addressed in associative learning and causal power theories.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allan, L. G., &Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of response alternatives.Canadian Journal of Psychology,34, 1–11.
Allan, L. G., Tangen, J. M., Wood, R., &Shah, T. (2003). Temporal contiguity and contingency judgments: A Pavlovian analogue.Integrative Physiological & Behavior Science,31, 205–211.
Anderson, J. R., &Sheu, C. F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments.Memory & Cognition,23, 510–524.
Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., &Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1996). Associative and normative models of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding cause. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 1–45). San Diego: Academic Press.
Buehner, M. J., Cheng, P. W., &Clifford, D. (2003). From covariation to causation: A test of the assumption of causal power.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 1119–1140.
Buehner, M. J., &May, J. (2002). Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction.Thinking & Reasoning,8, 269–295.
Buehner, M. J., &May, J. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56A, 865–890.
Buehner, M. J., &May, J. (2004). Abolishing the effect of reinforcement delay on human causal learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57B, 179–191.
Cheng, P. W. (1993). Separating causal laws from casual facts: Pressing the limits of statistical relevance. In D. L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 30. Advances in research and theory (pp. 215–264). San Diego: Academic Press.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Collins, D., &Shanks, D. (2003).Conformity to the power PC theory depends on the type of probe question. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Einhorn, H. J., &Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause.Psychological Bulletin,99, 3–19.
Gallistel, C. R., &Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning.Psychological Review,107, 289–344.
Hagmayer, Y., &Waldmann, M. R. (2002). How temporal assumptions influence causal judgments.Memory & Cognition,30, 1128–1137.
Hammond, L. J., &Paynter, W. E. (1983). Probabilistic contingency theories of animal conditioning: A critical analysis.Learning & Motivation,14, 527–550.
Hume, D. (1888). A treatise of human nature. In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.),Hume’s treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739)
Jenkins, H. M., &Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes.Psychological Monographs: General & Applied,79 (1, Whole No. 594), 1–17.
Lober, K., &Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997).Psychological Review,107, 195–212.
Mendelson, R., &Shultz, T. R. (1976). Covariation and temporal contiguity as principles of causal inference in young children.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,22, 408–412.
Michotte, A. E. (1963).The perception of causality (T. R. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen. (Original work published 1946)
Miller, R. R., &Barnet, R. C. (1993). The role of time in elementary associations.Current Directions in Psychological Science,2, 106–111.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Perales, J. C., &Shanks, D. R. (2003). Normative and descriptive accounts of the influence of power and contingency on causal judgement.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56A, 977–1007.
Reed, P. (1992). Effect of a signaled delay between an action and out come on human judgment of causality.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44B, 81–100.
Reed, P. (1996). No evidence for blocking in human judgments of causality by stimuli presented during an outcome delay.Learning & Motivation,27, 317–333.
Reed, P. (1999). Role of a stimulus filling an action-outcome delay in human judgments of causal effectiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 92–102.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Savastano, H. I., &Miller, R. R. (1998). Time as content in Pavlovian conditioning.Behavioural Processes,44, 147–162.
Schlottmann, A. (1999). Seeing it happen and knowing how it works: How children understand the relation between perceptual causality and underlying mechanism.Developmental Psychology,35, 303–317.
Scholl, B. J., &Nakayama, K. (2002). Causal capture: Contextual effects on the perception of collision events.Psychological Science,13, 493–498.
Scholl, B. J., &Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 299–309.
Shanks, D. R., &Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),Psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 21. Advances in research and theory (pp. 229–261). San Diego: Academic Press.
Shanks, D. R., Holyoak, K. J., &Medin, D. L. (Eds.) (1996).The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 34: Causal learning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., &Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41B, 139–159.
Siegler, R. S., &Liebert, R. M. (1974). Effects of contiguity, regularity, and age on children’s causal inferences.Developmental Psychology,10, 574–579.
Waldmann, M. R. (1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 47–88). San Diego: Academic Press.
Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 53–76.
Waldmann, M. R. (2001). Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: Evidence from an overshadowing paradigm.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 600–608.
Waldmann, M. R., &Hagmayer, Y. (1999). How categories shape causality. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.),Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 761–766). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Waldmann, M. R., &Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 222–236.
Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. L., &Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 174–188.
Wasserman, E. A., &Neunaber, D. J. (1986). College students’ responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,46, 15–35.
White, P. A. (2003). Making causal judgments from the proportion of confirming instances: The pCI rule.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 710–727.
Young, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 83–104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I thank Jon May for helpful discussions on much of the work reviewed in this article, and for creating Figure 2. I also thank Lorraine Allan and Oskar Pineño for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buehner, M.J. Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference. Learning & Behavior 33, 230–238 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196065
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196065