Not so Simple! Mechanisms Increase Preference for Complex Explanations

The Broad Reach of Multivariable Thinking

“…These are explanations that provide an account of the mechanisms that culminate in the outcome event of interest. Such explanations seem more satisfying compared to ones that identify factors thought to be associated with the outcome and shown capable of producing it but without explaining the mechanism involved (Zemla et al 2017(Zemla et al 2022. Mechanistic explanations are thought to be preferred because they provide a sense of understanding (Vasilyeva and Lombrozo 2015;Rozenblit and Keil 2002) whether or not the explanation is correct (Ahn et al 1995).…”

“…A second preference identified in both psychological and philosophical study has been the preference for simple explanations over more complex ones that invoke multiple factors (Johnson et al 2020;Lombrozo 2007;Thagard 1989). Parsimony is valued among experts as well as laypeople, as supported by findings going back as far as a large literature on discounting (Kelley 1973) although recent work has suggested that this preference may be less than universal if multiple factors are seen as providing a superior account of mechanism (Vasilyeva and Lombrozo, 2015;Zemla et al 2017Zemla et al , 2022. Additionally, there are task factors that influence this preference, such as prediction vs. attribution, with the latter task being more strongly associated with single-factor reasoning (Johnson et al 2019;Pilditch et al 2019).…”