doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00400

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2018/50:4 PP.400-412

The promotion of frequency tree type and questioning format on causal strength estimation


Abstract:
There are lots of evidences showing that participant's performance on Bayesian inference, syllogistic reasoning and probability reasoning could be promoted by cumulative frequency tree. However, very few study focuses on the promotion effect of frequency tree on causal reasoning. This study carried out two experiments to investigate the effect of frequency tree on causal strength inference. The research hypotheses include:(a) Frequency tree featuring a explicit nest-sets structure (ENS) can improve the rationality of participant's reasoning, while the frequency tree featuring a concealed nest-sets structure (CNS) can't improve rationality of reasoning; (b) Participants estimate the causal strength of different contingencies by different modes in experimental treatment which used frequency tree featuring a CNS; and (c) There are more participants estimate the causal strength by Power-PC model in preventive contingency rather than in productive contingency.
2 (Frequency tree, level 1:featuring a ENS, level 2:featuring a CNS)×2 (causal direction, level 1:productive, level 2:preventive)×3 (contingency, level 1:DP=0.33 and Power-PC=0.5; level 2:DP=0.33 and Power-PC=0.83; level 3:DP=0.67 and Power-PC=0.83) completely random design were used in two experiments. 469 undergraduate students participated in Experiment 1 which adopted counter-factual question, and 463 undergraduate students participated in Experiment 2 which adopted ability question. Contingency was offered by a booklet which contains 30 pages, and each page presents one sample related to the causality. Participant completed a frequency tree based on contingency, and estimated the causal strength of contingency individual. The frequency tree featuring a ENS consists of three types of information:the number of total samples, the number of samples in focus set, and the number of samples that represent effect emerge or not, while frequency tree featuring a CNS consists of the number of total samples and samples that represent effect emerge or not.
The study found that (a) There are three common models of causal reasoning:Dp, Power-PC and P (E/C) for productive contingency (or P(-E/C) for preventive contingency), the most popular model changes with different experiment treatments; (b) 70.06% of participants estimate causal strength by Power-PC model when they used frequency tree featuring a ENS, and only a few participants (about 21.28%) estimate causal strength by Power-PC model when they used frequency tree featuring a CNS; (c) The type of frequency tree and the format of question have combining influence on causal strength evaluation, and the type of frequency tree have more influences on strength evaluation than the format of question; (d) Both contingency effect and causal direction effect are present from the experimental treatment which used frequency tree featuring a CNS. Experiment results significantly support research hypotheses (a), (b) and (c).
These results indicate that frequency facilitating effect depends on supply nest-sets structure or not, whether in counter-factual question treatment or in ability question treatment. According to above two experiments, it is suggested that participant tends to make rational inference when they use frequency tree featuring a ENS or they were questioned by counter-factual format.

Key words:causal inference,promotion effect,frequency tree,question format

ReleaseDate:2018-04-27 06:46:02



Brase, G. L. (2009). Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 369-381.

Brase, G. L. (2014). The power of representation and interpretation:Doubling statistical reasoning performance with icons and frequentist interpretations of ambiguous numbers. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 81-97.

Buehner, M. J., Cheng, P. W., & Clliford, D. (2003). From covariation to causation:A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 1119-1140.

Bramley, N. R., Dayan, P., Griffiths, T. L., & Lagnado, D. A. (2017). Formalizing neurath's ship:Approximate algorithms for online causal learning. Psychological Review, 124, 301-338.

Buchsbaum, D., Griffiths, T. L., Plunkett, D., Gopnik, A., & Baldwin, D. (2015). Inferring action structure and causal relationships in continuous sequences of human action. Cognitive Psychology, 76, 30-77.

Blaisdell, A. P., Sawa, K., Leising, K. J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2006). Causal reasoning in rats. Science, 311, 1020-1022.

Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation:A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.

Cheng, P. W., & Buehner, M. J. (2012). Causal learning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds), The oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp.210-233). New York:Oxford University Press.

Cheng, P., Liljeholm, M., & Sandhofer, C. (2013). Logical consistency and objectivity in causal learning. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2034-2039). Austin, TX:Cognitive Science Society.

Carroll, C., Cheng, P. W., & Lu, H. (2013). Inferential dependencies in causal inference:A comparison of belief-distribution and associative approaches. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 142, 845-863.

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1-73.

Dwyer, D. M., & Waldmann, M. R. (2016). Beyond the information (not) given:Representations of stimulus absence in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130(3), 192-204.

Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children:Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337, 1623-1627.

Gigerenzer G., & Hoffrage U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction:Frequency formats. Psychology Review, 102, 684-704.

Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 334-384.

Hill, W. T., & Brase, G. L. (2012). When and for whom do frequencies facilitate performance? On the role of numerical literacy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2343-2368.

Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process:The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135-163.

Hoffrage, U., Hafenbrädl, S., & Bouquet, C. (2015). Natural frequencies facilitate diagnostic inferences of managers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 642.

Jenkins, H., & Ward, W. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs:General and Applied, 7, 1-17.

Luhmann, C. C., & Ahn, W. K. (2011). Expectations and interpretations during causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 568-587.

Liljeholm, M., & Cheng, P. W. (2009). The influence of virtual sample size on confidence and causal-strength judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 157-172.

Liu, Y. L., Chen, S. P., & Hu, Z. J. (2015). A research on virtual sample alter causal strength estimate. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(1), 146-151.

[刘雁伶, 陈水平, 胡竹菁. (2015). 实质取样对因果强度估计的影响. 心理科学, 38(1), 146-151.]

Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In K. J. Holyoak & R. M. Morrison (Eds.), The oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 260-276). New York:Oxford University Press.

Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review, 107, 195-212.

Lu, H., Yuille, A., Liljeholm, M., Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2008). Bayesian generic priors for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955-984.

Lu, H., Rojas, R. R., Beckers, T., & Yuille, A. L. (2016). A Bayesian theory of sequential causal learning and abstract transfer. Cognitive Science, 40, 404-439.

McCormack, T., Bramley, N. R., Frosch, C., Patrick, F., & Lagnado, D. (2016). Children's use of interventions to learn causal structure. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 1-22.

Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2010).Cognition and conditionals:Probability and logic in human thinking. New York:Oxford University Press.

Powell, D., Merrick, M. A., Lu, H. J., & Holyoak, K. J. (2016). Causal competition based on generic priors. Cognitive Psychology, 86, 62-86.

Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment:A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletiin & Review, 14, 577-596.

Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. R. (2008). Driven by power? Probe question and presentation format effects on causal judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1482-1494.

Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning:Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinformecement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning Ⅱ:Current theory and research (pp. 64-99). New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Sedlmeier, P. & Gigerenzer, G. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 130, 380-400.

Sirota, M., Kostovičová, L., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2015). How to train your Bayesian:A problem-representation transfer rather than a format-representation shift explains training effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1-9.

Shi, Z. F., Qiu, J, & Zhang, Q. L. (2006). Facilitating effect of transparent nested-sets relations on Bayesian reasoning. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 833-840.

[史滋福, 邱江, 张庆林. (2006). 明确嵌套集合关系对贝叶斯推理的促进效应. 心理学报, 38, 833-840.]

Thompson, V., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 278-310.

Vul, E., Goodman, N. D., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2014). One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples. Cognitive Science, 38, 599-637.

Vallée-Tourangeau, G., Abadie, M., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2015). Interactivity fosters Bayesian reasoning without instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 144, 581-603.

Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Payton, T., & Murphy, R. A. (2008). The impact of presentation format on causal inferences. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 177-194.

Wang, M. Y., & Fu, X. L. (2004a). Causal judgments in the concentrative presentation of information with different external representations. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 298-306.

[王墨耘, 傅小兰. (2004a). 用不同外部表征方式集中呈现信息条件下的因果力判断. 心理学报, 36, 298-306.]

Wang, M. Y., & Fu, X. L. (2004b). A test of the power PC theory with the paradigm of comparing causal power. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 160-167.

[王墨耘, 傅小兰. (2004b). 因果力比较范式下对效力PC理论的检验. 心理学报, 36, 160-167.]

Yeung, S., & Griffiths, T. L. (2015). Identifying expectations about the strength of causal relationships. Cognitive Psychology, 76, 1-29.