Abstract
In 1739, David Hume established the so-calledcues to causality—environmental cues that are important to the inference of causality. Although this descriptive account has been corroborated experimentally, it has not been established why these cues are useful, except that they may reflect statistical regularities in the environment. One of the cues to causality, covariation, helps predict whether an effect will occur, but not its time of occurrence. In the present study, evidence is provided that spatial and temporal contiguity improve an observer’s ability to predictwhen an effect will occur, thus complementing the utility of covariation as a predictor ofwhether an effect will occur. While observing Michotte’s (1946/1963) launching effect, participants showed greater accuracy and precision in their predictions of the onset of movement by the launched object when there was spatial and temporal contiguity. Furthermore, when auditory cues that bridged a delayed launch were included, causal ratings and predictability were similarly affected. These results suggest that the everyday inference of causality relies on our ability to predict whether and when an effect will occur.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative?Psychological Bulletin,114, 435–448.
Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral & Brain Sciences,14, 471–484.
Buehner, M. J., &May, J. (2002). Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction.Thinking & Reasoning,8, 269–295.
Buehner, M. J., &May, J. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56A, 865–890.
Cheng, P. W., &Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction.Psychological Review,99, 365–382.
Fechner, G. T. (1966).Elements of psychophysics (Vol. 1; H. E. Adler, Trans.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (Original work published 1860)
Garcia, J., &Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning.Psychonomic Science,4, 123–124.
Gibbon, J. (1981). On the form and location of the psychometric bisection function for time.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,24, 58–87.
Gilden, D. L., &Proffitt, D. R. (1994). Heuristic judgment of mass ratio in two-body collisions.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 708–720.
Glymour, C. (2001).The mind’s arrows: Bayes nets and graphical causal models in psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gruber, H. E., Fink, C. D., &Damm, V. (1957). Effects of experience on perception of causality.Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 89–93.
Hagmayer, Y., &Waldmann, M. R. (2002). How temporal assumptions influence causal judgments.Memory & Cognition,30, 1128–1137.
Hubbard, T. L., &Favretto, A. (2003). Naive impetus and Michotte’s “tool effect”: Evidence from representational momentum.Psychological Research,67, 134–152.
Hume, D. (1969).A treatise of human nature. New York: Penguin. (Original work published 1739)
Michotte, A. (1963).The perception of causality (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen. (Original work published 1946)
Michotte, A. (1991). The perception of the “tool effect.” In G. Thinès, A. Costall, & G. Butterworth (Eds.),Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception (pp. 87–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1951)
Natsoulas, T. (1961). Principles of momentum and kinetic energy in the perception of causality.American Journal of Psychology,74, 394–402.
Nisbett, R. E., &Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review,84, 231–259.
Pazzani, M. J. (1991). A computational theory of learning causal relationships.Cognitive Science,15, 401–424.
Powesland, P. F. (1959). The effect of practice upon the perception of causality.Canadian Journal of Psychology,13, 155–168.
Rachlin, H. C. (1966). Scaling subjective velocity, distance, and duration.Perception & Psychophysics,1, 77–82.
Schlottmann, A., &Anderson, N. H. (1993). An information integration approach to phenomenal causality.Memory & Cognition,21, 785–801.
Shanks, D. R. (1993). Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory.British Journal of Psychology,84, 319–354.
Shrout, P. E., &Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.Psychological Bulletin,86, 420–428.
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law.Psychological Review,64, 153–181.
Subbotsky, E. (2004). Magical thinking in judgments of causation: Can anomalous phenomena affect ontological causal beliefs in children and adults?British Journal of Developmental Psychology,22, 123–152.
Suppes, P. (1984).Probabilistic metaphysics. New York: Blackwell.
Tenenbaum, J. B., &Griffiths, T. L. (2003). Theory-based causal inference. In S. Becker, S. Thrun, & K.Obermayer (Eds.),Advances in neural information processing systems 15 (pp. 35–42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tolman, E. C., &Brunswik, E. (1935). The organism and the causal texture of the environment.Psychological Review,42, 43–77.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.Journal of the American Statistical Association,58, 236–244.
White, P. A., &Milne, A. (1999). Impressions of enforced disintegration and bursting in the visual perception of collision events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,128, 499–516.
Worley, J. K., &Markley, R. P. (1969). Distance discrimination in a reduced cue setting.Psychonomic Science,17, 237–238.
Young, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 83–104.
Young, M. E., &DeBauche, B. (1993). Causal mechanisms as temporal bridges in a connectionist model of causal attribution. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1092–1097). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Young, M. E., Johnson, J. L., &Wasserman, E. A. (2000). Serial causation: Occasion setting in a causal induction task.Memory & Cognition,28, 1213–1230.
Zacks, J. M., &Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and cognition.Psychological Bulletin,127, 3–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Young, M.E., Rogers, E.T. & Beckmann, J.S. Causal impressions: Predictingwhen, not justwhether . Mem Cogn 33, 320–331 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195320
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195320