The Influence of Delays in Real-Time Causal Learning

Abstract

Abstract:The close relation between time and causality is undisputed, but there is a paucity of research on how people use temporal information to inform their causal judgments. Experiment 1 examined the effect of delay variability on causal judgments, and whether participants were sensitive to the presence of a hastener cue that reduced the delay between cause and effect without changing the contingency. The results showed that higher causal ratings were given to causeeffect pairs with less variable delays, but that conditions with an active hastener actually reduced participants' ratings of the causal cues. The latter finding can also be explained in terms of people's sensitivity to variability, because an undetected hastener leads to greater variability in experienced delays. Experiment 2 followed up previous research showing that people give higher causal ratings to cause-effect pairs with shorter delays. We examined whether this finding might be due to the greater probability of intervening events rather than the length of delay per se. The results supported the former conjecture: participants' causal ratings were influenced by the probability of intervening events in the cause-effect interval and not the mere length of delay. The findings from both experiments raise questions for current theories of causal learning.

Context and Time in Causal Learning: Contingency and Mood Dependent Effects

“…However, these models hold that knowledge of time, in terms of contiguity and succession, is a starting point where causal knowledge is used to generate initial causal models or hypotheses about a given situation, with contingency information used secondarily to test causal hypotheses [37], [38] or assess the strength of the causal relationship [11], [12], [13]. Importantly, the assumption of the existence of causal knowledge can, quite naturally, explain data which associative models find difficult to incorporate.…”

Temporal predictability enhances judgements of causality in elemental causal induction from both observation and intervention

“…The question then is why this discrepancy should exist between Young and Nguyen's (2009) results and those of Lagnado and Speekenbrink (2010), since both involve causal learning from observation. It is worth pointing out that both of these tasks differed somewhat from the typical causal learning task (Greville & Buehner, 2010;Shanks et al, 1989;Wasserman et al, 1983) in which participants investigate the putative relationship between a single candidate cause and a single candidate effect, and provide a numerical rating reflecting their assessment of the reliability or strength of the cause-effect relationship.…”

Varieties of perceptual truth and their possible evolutionary roots

“…Given the importance of serial order of events in guiding and forming behavior (Lashley, 1951;Kolodny and Edelman, 2014), temporal succession that is close enough (Lagnado and Speekenbrink, 2010) between…”