Not so simple! Causal mechanisms increase preference for complex explanations.

Mechanisms play a central role in how we think about causality, yet not all causal explanations describe mechanisms. Across five experiments, we find that people evaluate explanations differently depending on whether or not they include mechanisms. Despite common wisdom suggesting that explanations ought to be simple in the sense of appealing to as few causes as necessary to explain an effect, the literature is divided over whether people adhere to this principle. Our findings suggest that the presence of causal mechanisms in an explanation is one factor that reduces adherence. While competing explanations are often judged based on their probability of being correct, mechanisms afford a different way of evaluating explanations: They describe the underlying nature of causal relations. Complex explanations (appealing to multiple causes) contain more causal relations and thus allow for more mechanistic information, providing a fuller account of the causal network and promoting a greater sense of understanding.

Categorical Updating in a Bayesian Propensity Problem.

We present three experiments using a novel problem in which participants update their estimates of propensities when faced with an uncertain new instance. We examine this using two different causal structures (common cause/common effect) and two different scenarios (agent-based/mechanical). In the first, participants must update their estimate of the propensity for two warring nations to successfully explode missiles after being told of a new explosion on the border between both nations. In the second, participants must update their estimate of the accuracy of two early warning tests for cancer when they produce conflicting reports about a patient. Across both experiments, we find two modal responses, representing around one-third of participants each. In the first, "Categorical" response, participants update propensity estimates as if they were certain about the single event, for example, certain that one of the nations was responsible for the latest explosion, or certain about which of the two tests is correct. In the second, "No change" response, participants make no update to their propensity estimates at all. Across the three experiments, the theory is developed and tested that these two responses in fact have a single representation of the problem: because the actual outcome is binary (only one of the nations could have launched the missile; the patient either has cancer or not), these participants believe it is incorrect to update propensities in a graded manner. They therefore operate on a "certainty threshold" basis, whereby, if they are certain enough about the single event, they will make the "Categorical" response, and if they are below this threshold, they will make the "No change" response. Ramifications are considered for the "categorical" response in particular, as this approach produces a positive-feedback dynamic similar to that seen in the belief polarization/confirmation bias literature.

Making a positive difference: Criticality in groups.

How critical are individual members perceived to be for their group's performance? In this paper, we show that judgments of criticality are intimately linked to considering responsibility. Prospective responsibility attributions in groups are relevant across many domains and situations, and have the potential to influence motivation, performance, and allocation of resources. We develop various models that differ in how the relationship between criticality and responsibility is conceptualized. To test our models, we experimentally vary the task structure (disjunctive, conjunctive, and mixed) and the abilities of the group members (which affects their probability of success). We show that both factors influence criticality judgments, and that a model which construes criticality as anticipated credit best explains participants' judgments. Unlike prior work that has defined criticality as anticipated responsibility for both success and failures, our results suggest that people only consider the possible outcomes in which an individual contributed to a group success, but disregard group failure.

Unpredictable robots elicit responsibility attributions.

Do people hold robots responsible for their actions? While Clark and Fischer present a useful framework for interpreting social robots, we argue that they fail to account for people's willingness to assign responsibility to robots in certain contexts, such as when a robot performs actions not predictable by its user or programmer.

Drawing conclusions: Representing and evaluating competing explanations.

Despite the increase in studies investigating people's explanatory preferences in the domains of psychology and philosophy, little is known about their preferences in more applied domains, such as the criminal justice system. We show that when people evaluate competing legal accounts of the same evidence, their explanatory preferences are affected by whether they are required to draw causal models of the evidence. In addition, we identify 'mechanism' as an explanatory feature that people value when evaluating explanations. Although previous research has shown that people can reason correctly about causality, ours is one of the first studies to show that generating and drawing causal models directly affects people's evaluations of explanations. Our findings have implications for the development of normative models of legal arguments, which have so far adopted a singularly 'unified' approach, as well as the development of modelling tools to support people's reasoning and decision-making in applied domains. Finally, they add to the literature on the cognitive basis of evaluating competing explanations in new domains.

Redressing the emperor in causal clothing.

Over-flexibility in the definition of Friston blankets obscures a key distinction between observational and interventional inference. The latter requires cognizers form not just a causal representation of the world but also of their own boundary and relationship with it, in order to diagnose the consequences of their actions. We suggest this locates the blanket in the eye of the beholder.

Human Vision Reconstructs Time to Satisfy Causal Constraints.

The goal of perception is to infer the most plausible source of sensory stimulation. Unisensory perception of temporal order, however, appears to require no inference, because the order of events can be uniquely determined from the order in which sensory signals arrive. Here, we demonstrate a novel perceptual illusion that casts doubt on this intuition: In three experiments (N = 607), the experienced event timings were determined by causality in real time. Adult participants viewed a simple three-item sequence, ACB, which is typically remembered as ABC in line with principles of causality. When asked to indicate the time at which events B and C occurred, participants' points of subjective simultaneity shifted so that the assumed cause B appeared earlier and the assumed effect C later, despite participants' full attention and repeated viewings. This first demonstration of causality reversing perceived temporal order cannot be explained by postperceptual distortion, lapsed attention, or saccades.

BARD: A Structured Technique for Group Elicitation of Bayesian Networks to Support Analytic Reasoning.

In many complex, real-world situations, problem solving and decision making require effective reasoning about causation and uncertainty. However, human reasoning in these cases is prone to confusion and error. Bayesian networks (BNs) are an artificial intelligence technology that models uncertain situations, supporting better probabilistic and causal reasoning and decision making. However, to date, BN methodologies and software require (but do not include) substantial upfront training, do not provide much guidance on either the model building process or on using the model for reasoning and reporting, and provide no support for building BNs collaboratively. Here, we contribute a detailed description and motivation for our new methodology and application, Bayesian ARgumentation via Delphi (BARD). BARD utilizes BNs and addresses these shortcomings by integrating (1) short, high-quality e-courses, tips, and help on demand; (2) a stepwise, iterative, and incremental BN construction process; (3) report templates and an automated explanation tool; and (4) a multiuser web-based software platform and Delphi-style social processes. The result is an end-to-end online platform, with associated online training, for groups without prior BN expertise to understand and analyze a problem, build a model of its underlying probabilistic causal structure, validate and reason with the causal model, and (optionally) use it to produce a written analytic report. Initial experiments demonstrate that, for suitable problems, BARD aids in reasoning and reporting. Comparing their effect sizes also suggests BARD's BN-building and collaboration combine beneficially and cumulatively.

Motive on the mind: Explanatory preferences at multiple stages of the legal-investigative process.

Much work has investigated explanatory preferences for things like animals and artifacts, but how do explanation preferences manifest in everyday life? Here, we focus on the criminal justice system as a case study. In this domain, outcomes critically depend on how actors in the system (e.g., lawyers, jurors) generate and interpret explanations. We investigate lay preferences for two difference classes of information: information that appeals to opportunistic aspects of a crime (i.e., how the culprit could have committed the crime) vs. motivational aspects of that crime (i.e., the purpose for committing the crime). In two studies, we demonstrate that people prefer 'motive' accounts of crimes (analogous to a teleology preference) at different stages of the investigative process. In an additional two studies we demonstrate that these preferences are context-sensitive: namely, we find that 'motive' information tends to be more incriminating and less exculpatory. We discuss these findings in light of a broad literature on the cognitive basis of explanatory preferences; specifically, we draw analogy to preferences for teleological vs. mechanistic explanations. We also discuss implications for the criminal justice system.

A counterfactual simulation model of causal judgments for physical events.

How do people make causal judgments about physical events? We introduce the counterfactual simulation model (CSM) which predicts causal judgments in physical settings by comparing what actually happened with what would have happened in relevant counterfactual situations. The CSM postulates different aspects of causation that capture the extent to which a cause made a difference to whether and how the outcome occurred, and whether the cause was sufficient and robust. We test the CSM in several experiments in which participants make causal judgments about dynamic collision events. A preliminary study establishes a very close quantitative mapping between causal and counterfactual judgments. Experiment 1 demonstrates that counterfactuals are necessary for explaining causal judgments. Participants' judgments differed dramatically between pairs of situations in which what actually happened was identical, but where what would have happened differed. Experiment 2 features multiple candidate causes and shows that participants' judgments are sensitive to different aspects of causation. The CSM provides a better fit to participants' judgments than a heuristic model which uses features based on what actually happened. We discuss how the CSM can be used to model the semantics of different causal verbs, how it captures related concepts such as physical support, and how its predictions extend beyond the physical domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Causal judgments about atypical actions are influenced by agents' epistemic states.

A prominent finding in causal cognition research is people's tendency to attribute increased causality to atypical actions. If two agents jointly cause an outcome (conjunctive causation), but differ in how frequently they have performed the causal action before, people judge the atypically acting agent to have caused the outcome to a greater extent. In this paper, we argue that it is the epistemic state of an abnormally acting agent, rather than the abnormality of their action, that is driving people's causal judgments. Given the predictability of the normally acting agent's behaviour, the abnormal agent is in a better position to foresee the consequences of their action. We put this hypothesis to test in four experiments. In Experiment 1, we show that people judge the atypical agent as more causal than the normally acting agent, but also judge the atypical agent to have an epistemic advantage. In Experiment 2, we find that people do not judge a causal difference if no epistemic advantage for the abnormal agent arises. In Experiment 3, we replicate these findings in a scenario in which the abnormal agent's epistemic advantage generalises to a novel context. In Experiment 4, we extend these findings to mental states more broadly construed and develop a Bayesian network model that predicts the degree of outcome-oriented mental states based on action normality and epistemic states. We find that people infer mental states like desire and intention to a greater extent from abnormal behaviour when this behaviour is accompanied by an epistemic advantage. We discuss these results in light of current theories and research on people's preference for abnormal causes.

Blaming automated vehicles in difficult situations.

Automated vehicles (AVs) have made huge strides toward large-scale deployment. Despite this progress, AVs continue to make mistakes, some resulting in death. Although some mistakes are avoidable, others are hard to avoid even by highly skilled drivers. As these mistakes continue to shape attitudes toward AVs, we need to understand whether people differentiate between them. We ask the following two questions. When an AV makes a mistake, does the perceived difficulty or novelty of the situation predict blame attributed to it? How does that blame attribution compare to a human driving a car? Through two studies, we find that the amount of blame people attribute to AVs and human drivers is sensitive to situation difficulty. However, while some situations could be more difficult for AVs and others for human drivers, people blamed AVs more, regardless. Our results provide novel insights in understanding psychological barriers influencing the public's view of AVs.

Strange but true: Corroboration and base rate neglect.

How do we deal with unlikely witness testimonies? Whether in legal or everyday reasoning, corroborative evidence is generally considered a strong marker of support for the reported hypothesis. However, questions remain regarding how the prior probability, or base rate, of that hypothesis interacts with corroboration. Using a Bayesian network model, we illustrate an inverse relationship between the base rate of a hypothesis, and the support provided by corroboration. More precisely, as the base rate of hypothesis becomes more unlikely (and thus there is lower expectation of corroborating testimony), each piece of confirming testimony provides a nonlinear increase in support, relative to a more commonplace hypothesis-assuming independence between witnesses. We show across 3 experiments that lay reasoners consistently fail to account for this impact of (rare) base rates in both diagnostic and intercausal reasoning, resulting in substantial underestimation in belief updating. We consider this a novel demonstration of an inverted form of base rate neglect. We highlight the implications of this work for any scenario in which one cannot assume the confirmation or disconfirmation of a reported hypothesis is uniform. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Propensities and Second Order Uncertainty: A Modified Taxi Cab Problem.

The study of people's ability to engage in causal probabilistic reasoning has typically used fixed-point estimates for key figures. For example, in the classic taxi-cab problem, where a witness provides evidence on which of two cab companies (the more common 'green'/less common 'blue') were responsible for a hit and run incident, solvers are told the witness's ability to judge cab color is 80%. In reality, there is likely to be some uncertainty around this estimate (perhaps we tested the witness and they were correct 4/5 times), known as second-order uncertainty, producing a distribution rather than a fixed probability. While generally more closely matching real world reasoning, a further important ramification of this is that our best estimate of the witness' accuracy can and should change when the witness makes the claim that the cab was blue. We present a Bayesian Network model of this problem, and show that, while the witness's report does increase our probability of the cab being blue, it simultaneously decreases our estimate of their future accuracy (because blue cabs are less common). We presented this version of the problem to 131 participants, requiring them to update their estimates of both the probability the cab involved was blue, as well as the witness's accuracy, after they claim it was blue. We also required participants to explain their reasoning process and provided follow up questions to probe various aspects of their reasoning. While some participants responded normatively, the majority self-reported 'assuming' one of the probabilities was a certainty. Around a quarter assumed the cab was green, and thus the witness was wrong, decreasing their estimate of their accuracy. Another quarter assumed the witness was correct and actually increased their estimate of their accuracy, showing a circular logic similar to that seen in the confirmation bias/belief polarization literature. Around half of participants refused to make any change, with convergent evidence suggesting that these participants do not see the relevance of the witness's report to their accuracy before we know for certain whether they are correct or incorrect.

Explaining Away, Augmentation, and the Assumption of Independence.

In reasoning about situations in which several causes lead to a common effect, a much studied and yet still not well-understood inference is that of explaining away. Assuming that the causes contribute independently to the effect, if we learn that the effect is present, then this increases the probability that one or more of the causes are present. But if we then learn that a particular cause is present, this cause "explains" the presence of the effect, and the probabilities of the other causes decrease again. People tend to show this explaining away effect in their probability judgments, but to a lesser extent than predicted by the causal structure of the situation. We investigated further the conditions under which explaining away is observed. Participants estimated the probability of a cause, given the presence or the absence of another cause, for situations in which the effect was either present or absent, and the evidence about the effect was either certain or uncertain. Responses were compared to predictions obtained using Bayesian network modeling as well as a sensitivity analysis of the size of normative changes in probability under different information conditions. One of the conditions investigated: when there is certainty that the effect is absent, is special because under the assumption of causal independence, the probabilities of the causes remain invariant, that is, there is no normative explaining away or augmentation. This condition is therefore especially diagnostic of people's reasoning about common-effect structures. The findings suggest that, alongside earlier explanations brought forward in the literature, explaining away may occur less often when the causes are assumed to interact in their contribution to the effect, and when the normative size of the probability change is not large enough to be subjectively meaningful. Further, people struggled when given evidence against negative evidence, resembling a double negation effect.

Strategies for selecting and evaluating information.

Within the domain of psychology, Optimal Experimental Design (OED) principles have been used to model how people seek and evaluate information. Despite proving valuable as computational-level methods to account for people's behaviour, their descriptive and explanatory powers remain largely unexplored. In a series of experiments, we used a naturalistic crime investigation scenario to examine how people evaluate queries, as well as outcomes, in probabilistic contexts. We aimed to uncover the psychological strategies that people use, not just to assess whether they deviated from OED principles. In addition, we explored the adaptiveness of the identified strategies across both one-shot and stepwise information search tasks. We found that people do not always evaluate queries strictly in OED terms and use distinct strategies, such as by identifying a leading contender at the outset. Moreover, we identified aspects of zero-sum thinking and risk aversion that interact with people's information search strategies. Our findings have implications for building a descriptive account of information seeking and evaluation, accounting for factors that currently lie outside the realm of information-theoretic OED measures, such as context and the learner's own preferences.

Dependencies in evidential reports: The case for informational advantages.

Whether assessing the accuracy of expert forecasting, the pros and cons of group communication, or the value of evidence in diagnostic or predictive reasoning, dependencies between experts, group members, or evidence have traditionally been seen as a form of redundancy. We demonstrate that this conception of dependence conflates the structure of a dependency network, and the observations across this network. By disentangling these two elements we show, via mathematical proof and specific examples, that there are cases where dependencies yield an informational advantage over independence. More precisely, when a structural dependency exists, but observations are either partial or contradicting, these observations provide more support to a hypothesis than when this structural dependency does not exist, ceteris paribus. Furthermore, we show that lay reasoners endorse sufficient assumptions underpinning these advantageous structures yet fail to appreciate their implications for probability judgments and belief revision.

Causal Responsibility and Robust Causation.

How do people judge the degree of causal responsibility that an agent has for the outcomes of her actions? We show that a relatively unexplored factor - the robustness (or stability) of the causal chain linking the agent's action and the outcome - influences judgments of causal responsibility of the agent. In three experiments, we vary robustness by manipulating the number of background circumstances under which the action causes the effect, and find that causal responsibility judgments increase with robustness. In the first experiment, the robustness manipulation also raises the probability of the effect given the action. Experiments 2 and 3 control for probability-raising, and show that robustness still affects judgments of causal responsibility. In particular, Experiment 3 introduces an Ellsberg type of scenario to manipulate robustness, while keeping the conditional probability and the skill deployed in the action fixed. Experiment 4, replicates the results of Experiment 3, while contrasting between judgments of causal strength and of causal responsibility. The results show that in all cases, the perceived degree of responsibility (but not of causal strength) increases with the robustness of the action-outcome causal chain.

The propensity interpretation of probability and diagnostic split in explaining away.

Causal judgements in explaining-away situations, where multiple independent causes compete to account for a common effect, are ubiquitous in both everyday and specialised contexts. Despite their ubiquity, cognitive psychologists still struggle to understand how people reason in these contexts. Empirical studies have repeatedly found that people tend to 'insufficiently' explain away: that is, when one cause explains the presence of an effect, people do not sufficiently reduce the probability of other competing causes. However, the diverse accounts that researchers have proposed to explain this insufficiency suggest we are yet to find a compelling account of these results. In the current research we explored the novel possibility that insufficiency in explaining away is driven by: (i) some people interpreting probabilities as propensities, i.e. as tendencies of a physical system to produce an outcome and (ii) some people splitting the probability space among the causes in diagnostic reasoning, i.e. by following a strategy we call 'the diagnostic split'. We tested these two hypotheses by manipulating (a) the characteristics of cover stories to reflect different degrees to which the propensity interpretation of probability was pronounced, and (b) the prior probabilities of the causes which entailed different normative amounts of explaining away. Our results were in line with the extant literature as we found insufficient explaining away. However, we also found empirical support for our two hypotheses, suggesting that they are a driving force behind the reported insufficiency.

Temporal Binding, Causation, and Agency: Developing a New Theoretical Framework.

In temporal binding, the temporal interval between one event and another, occurring some time later, is subjectively compressed. We discuss two ways in which temporal binding has been conceptualized. In studies showing temporal binding between a voluntary action and its causal consequences, such binding is typically interpreted as providing a measure of an implicit or pre-reflective "sense of agency." However, temporal binding has also been observed in contexts not involving voluntary action, but only the passive observation of a cause-effect sequence. In those contexts, it has been interpreted as a top-down effect on perception reflecting a belief in causality. These two views need not be in conflict with one another, if one thinks of them as concerning two separate mechanisms through which temporal binding can occur. In this paper, we explore an alternative possibility: that there is a unitary way of explaining temporal binding both within and outside the context of voluntary action as a top-down effect on perception reflecting a belief in causality. Any such explanation needs to account for ways in which agency, and factors connected with agency, has been shown to affect the strength of temporal binding. We show that principles of causal inference and causal selection already familiar from the literature on causal learning have the potential to explain why the strength of people's causal beliefs can be affected by the extent to which they are themselves actively involved in bringing about events, thus in turn affecting binding.