scholarly journals A counterfactual simulation model of causal judgments for physical events.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Gerstenberg ◽  
Noah D. Goodman ◽  
David A. Lagnado ◽  
Joshua B. Tenenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Model ◽  
Causal Judgments ◽  
Counterfactual Simulation

scholarly journals A counterfactual simulation model of causal judgment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Gerstenberg ◽  
Noah D. Goodman ◽  
David Lagnado ◽  
Joshua Tenenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Model ◽  
Causal Judgment ◽  
Physical Domain ◽  
Heuristic Model ◽  
Physical Support ◽  
Quantitative Mapping ◽  
Causal Judgments ◽  
Counterfactual Simulation

How do people make causal judgments? We introduce the counterfactual simulation model (CSM) which predicts causal judgments by comparing what actually happened with what would have happened in relevant counterfactual situations. The CSM postulates different aspects of causation that capture the extent to which a cause made a difference to whether and how the outcome occurred, and whether the cause was sufficient and robust. We test the CSM in three experiments in which participants make causal judgments about dynamic collision events. Experiment 1 establishes a very close quantitative mapping between causal judgments and counterfactual simulations. Experiment 2 demonstrates that counterfactuals are necessary for explaining causal judgments. Participants' judgments differed dramatically between pairs of situations in which what actually happened was identical, but where what would have happened differed. Experiment 3 features two candidate causes and shows that participants' judgments are sensitive to different aspects of causation. The CSM provides a better fit to participants' judgments than a heuristic model which uses features based on what actually happened. We discuss how the CSM can be used to model the semantics of different causal verbs, how it captures related concepts such as physical support, and how its predictions extend beyond the physical domain.

scholarly journals A counterfactual simulation model of causation by omission

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Gerstenberg ◽  
Simon Stephan
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Model ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Physical Situation ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Causal Responsibility ◽  
Causal Judgments ◽  
Relevant Variables ◽  
Normative Expectations ◽  
Physical Interactions ◽  
Counterfactual Simulation

When do people say that an event that didn't happen was a cause? We extend the counterfactual simulation model (CSM) of causal judgment and test it in a series of three experiments that look at people's causal judgments about omissions in dynamic physical interactions. The problem of omissive causation highlights a series of sub-problems that need to be addressed in order to give an adequate causal explanation of why something happened: what are the relevant variables, what are their possible values, how are putative causal relationships evaluated, and how is the causal responsibility for an outcome attributed to multiple causes? The CSM predicts that people make causal judgments about omissions by mentally simulating what would have happened in relevant counterfactual situations. People use their intuitive understanding of physics to run these mental simulations. While prior work has argued that normative expectations affect judgments of omissive causation, we suggest a concrete mechanism of how this happens: expectations affect what counterfactuals people consider, and the more certain people are that the counterfactual outcome would have been different from what actually happened, the more causal they judge the omission to be. Our experiments show that both the structure of the physical situation as well as expectations about what will happen affect people's judgments.

scholarly journals A counterfactual simulation model of causation by omission

Cognition ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 216 ◽  
pp. 104842
Author(s):  
Tobias Gerstenberg ◽  
Simon Stephan
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Model ◽  
Counterfactual Simulation

scholarly journals Eye-Tracking Causality

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 1731-1744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Gerstenberg ◽  
Matthew F. Peterson ◽  
Noah D. Goodman ◽  
David A. Lagnado ◽  
Joshua B. Tenenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Billiard Ball ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Causal Judgments ◽  
High Level ◽  
Counterfactual Simulation

How do people make causal judgments? What role, if any, does counterfactual simulation play? Counterfactual theories of causal judgments predict that people compare what actually happened with what would have happened if the candidate cause had been absent. Process theories predict that people focus only on what actually happened, to assess the mechanism linking candidate cause and outcome. We tracked participants’ eye movements while they judged whether one billiard ball caused another one to go through a gate or prevented it from going through. Both participants’ looking patterns and their judgments demonstrated that counterfactual simulation played a critical role. Participants simulated where the target ball would have gone if the candidate cause had been removed from the scene. The more certain participants were that the outcome would have been different, the stronger the causal judgments. These results provide the first direct evidence for spontaneous counterfactual simulation in an important domain of high-level cognition.

scholarly journals Eye-tracking causality

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Gerstenberg ◽  
Matthew F. Peterson ◽  
Noah D. Goodman ◽  
David Lagnado ◽  
josh tenenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Billiard Ball ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Causal Judgments ◽  
High Level ◽  
Counterfactual Simulation

How do people make causal judgments? What role, if any, does counterfactual simulation play? Counterfactual theories of causal judgments predict that people compare what actually happened with what would have happened if the candidate cause had been absent. Process theories predict that people focus only on what actually happened, to assess the mechanism linking candidate cause and outcome. We tracked participants' eye movements while they judged whether one billiard ball caused another one to go through a gate or prevented it from going through. Both participants' looking patterns and their judgments demonstrated that counterfactual simulation played a critical role. Participants simulated where the target ball would have gone if the candidate cause had been removed from the scene. The more certain participants were that the outcome would have been different, the stronger their causal judgments. These results provide the first direct evidence for spontaneous counterfactual simulation in an important domain of high-level cognition.

Novel simulation model for many-body multipole dispersion interactions

1998 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTIN VAN DER HOEF ◽  
PAUL MADDEN
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Model ◽  
Dispersion Interactions ◽  
Many Body

Stimulus structure and causal judgments

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert F. Smith ◽  
Nadine M. Meyers ◽  
Portia T. Rivera
Keyword(s):  
Causal Judgments
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document