Two heads are better than one, but how much?: evidence that people's use of causal integration rules does not always conform to normative standards

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorVadillo, Miguel A.
dc.contributor.authorOrtega Castro, Nerea
dc.contributor.authorBarberia Fernández, Itxaso
dc.contributor.authorBaker, A.G.
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-16T07:20:35Z
dc.date.available2026-05-16T07:20:35Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.date.updated2026-05-16T07:20:35Z
dc.description.abstractMany theories of causal learning and causal induction differ in their assumptions about how people combine the causal impact of several causes presented in compound. Some theories propose that when several causes are present, their joint causal impact is equal to the linear sum of the individual impact of each cause. However, some recent theories propose that the causal impact of several causes needs to be combined by means of a noisy-OR integration rule. In other words, the probability of the effect given several causes would be equal to the sum of the probability of the effect given each cause in isolation minus the overlap between those probabilities. In the present series of experiments, participants were given information about the causal impact of several causes and then they were asked what compounds of those causes they would prefer to use if they wanted to produce the effect. The results of these experiments suggest that participants actually use a variety of strategies, including not only the linear and the noisy-OR integration rules, but also averaging the impact of several causes.en
dc.description.sponsorshipMAV, NOC, and IB were supported by Grant IT363-10from Departamento de Educación, Universidades e Investi-gación of the Basque Government and Grants PSI2011-26965 (NOC and MAV) and PSI2010-20424 (IB) fromMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación. NOC was also sup-ported by fellowship BFI09.102 from the Basque Govern-ment. AGB was supported by a Discovery Grant from theNational Sciences and Engineering Research Council(NSERC) of Canadaen
dc.identifier.citationVadillo, M. A., Ortega-Castro, N., Barberia, I., & Baker. (2014). Two heads are better than one, but how much?: evidence that people’s use of causal integration rules does not always conform to normative standards. Experimental Psychology, 61(5), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/A000255
dc.identifier.doi10.1027/1618-3169/A000255
dc.identifier.eissn2190-5142
dc.identifier.issn1618-3169
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14454/5978
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherHogrefe Publishing
dc.rights© 2014 Hogrefe Publishing
dc.subject.otherCausal reasoning
dc.subject.otherIntegration rules
dc.subject.otherSummation
dc.titleTwo heads are better than one, but how much?: evidence that people's use of causal integration rules does not always conform to normative standardsen
dc.typejournal article
dcterms.accessRightsopen access
oaire.citation.endPage367
oaire.citation.issue5
oaire.citation.startPage356
oaire.citation.titleExperimental Psychology
oaire.citation.volume61
oaire.versionVoR
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
vadillo_two_2014.pdf
Tamaño:
341.65 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descargar
Colecciones
Artículos