Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. (1 other version)Counterfactual thinking and recency effects in causal judgment.Paul Henne, Aleksandra Kulesza, Karla Perez & Augustana Houcek - 2021 - Cognition 212 (C):104708.
    People tend to judge more recent events, relative to earlier ones, as the cause of some particular outcome. For instance, people are more inclined to judge that the last basket, rather than the first, caused the team to win the basketball game. This recency effect, however, reverses in cases of overdetermination: people judge that earlier events, rather than more recent ones, caused the outcome when the event is individually sufficient but not individually necessary for the outcome. In five experiments (N (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Causal judgments about atypical actions are influenced by agents' epistemic states.Lara Kirfel & David Lagnado - 2021 - Cognition 212 (C):104721.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • An interaction effect of norm violations on causal judgment.Maureen Gill, Jonathan F. Kominsky, Thomas F. Icard & Joshua Knobe - 2022 - Cognition 228 (C):105183.
    Existing research has shown that norm violations influence causal judgments, and a number of different models have been developed to explain these effects. One such model, the necessity/sufficiency model, predicts an interac- tion pattern in people’s judgments. Specifically, it predicts that when people are judging the degree to which a particular factor is a cause, there should be an interaction between (a) the degree to which that factor violates a norm and (b) the degree to which another factor in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Absence and Abnormality.Bram Vaassen - 2023 - Analysis 83 (1):98-106.
    Absences pose a dilemma for theories of causation. Allowing them to be causes seems to make theories too permissive (Lewis, 2000). Banning them from being causes seems to make theories too restrictive (Schaffer, 2000, 2004). An increasingly popular approach to this dilemma is to acknowledge that norms can affect which absences count as causes (e.g., Thomson, 2003; McGrath, 2005; Henne et al., 2017; Willemsen, 2018). In this article, I distinguish between two influential implementations of such ‘abnormality’ approaches and argue that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Confidence and gradation in causal judgment.Kevin O'Neill, Paul Henne, Paul Bello, John Pearson & Felipe De Brigard - 2022 - Cognition 223 (C):105036.
    When comparing the roles of the lightning strike and the dry climate in causing the forest fire, one might think that the lightning strike is more of a cause than the dry climate, or one might think that the lightning strike completely caused the fire while the dry conditions did not cause it at all. Psychologists and philosophers have long debated whether such causal judgments are graded; that is, whether people treat some causes as stronger than others. To address this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Double Prevention, Causal Judgments, and Counterfactuals.Paul Henne & Kevin O'Neill - 2022 - Cognitive Science 46 (5):e13127.
    Mike accidentally knocked against a bottle. Seeing that the bottle was about to fall, Jack was just about to catch it when Peter accidentally knocked against him, making Jack unable to catch it. Jack did not grab the bottle, and it fell to the ground and spilled. In double-prevention cases like these, philosophers and nonphilosophers alike tend to judge that Mike knocking into the bottle caused the beer to spill and that Peter knocking into Jack did not cause the beer (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Causal Judgment in the Wild: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.Tadeg Quillien & Michael Barlev - 2022 - Cognitive Science 46 (2):e13101.
    Cognitive Science, Volume 46, Issue 2, February 2022.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • No evidence that reversibility affects causal judgments in late-preemption cases.Paul Henne, Karla Perez & Chad McCracken - forthcoming - Philosophical Psychology.
    Recently, Ross and Woodward (2022) argued that the reversibility of an outcome – that is, whether the outcome can be undone – affects causal judgments. One prediction of their account is that reversibility affects causal judgments in latepreemption scenarios, where people typically judge that events that produce the outcome earlier are more causal than preempted alternative events that would have otherwise produced the outcome. Ross and Woodward’s account predicts that when the outcome is reversible, people would judge these events similarly (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Looking at Mental Images: Eye‐Tracking Mental Simulation During Retrospective Causal Judgment.Kristina Krasich, Kevin O'Neill & Felipe De Brigard - 2024 - Cognitive Science 48 (3):e13426.
    How do people evaluate causal relationships? Do they just consider what actually happened, or do they also consider what could have counterfactually happened? Using eye tracking and Gaussian process modeling, we investigated how people mentally simulated past events to judge what caused the outcomes to occur. Participants played a virtual ball‐shooting game and then—while looking at a blank screen—mentally simulated (a) what actually happened, (b) what counterfactually could have happened, or (c) what caused the outcome to happen. Our findings showed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark