Causal Responsibility and Robust Causation.
attributions of responsibility
causal contingency and stability
causality and responsibility
epistemic perspective
robust causation
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
20
08
2019
accepted:
27
04
2020
entrez:
16
6
2020
pubmed:
17
6
2020
medline:
17
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
How do people judge the degree of causal responsibility that an agent has for the outcomes of her actions? We show that a relatively unexplored factor - the robustness (or stability) of the causal chain linking the agent's action and the outcome - influences judgments of causal responsibility of the agent. In three experiments, we vary robustness by manipulating the number of background circumstances under which the action causes the effect, and find that causal responsibility judgments increase with robustness. In the first experiment, the robustness manipulation also raises the probability of the effect given the action. Experiments 2 and 3 control for probability-raising, and show that robustness still affects judgments of causal responsibility. In particular, Experiment 3 introduces an Ellsberg type of scenario to manipulate robustness, while keeping the conditional probability and the skill deployed in the action fixed. Experiment 4, replicates the results of Experiment 3, while contrasting between judgments of causal strength and of causal responsibility. The results show that in all cases, the perceived degree of responsibility (but not of causal strength) increases with the robustness of the action-outcome causal chain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32536893
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01069
pmc: PMC7269104
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1069Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Grinfeld, Lagnado, Gerstenberg, Woodward and Usher.
Références
Cognition. 2017 Apr;161:80-93
pubmed: 28157584
Cognition. 2018 Aug;177:234-248
pubmed: 29723779
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Apr;11(4):143-52
pubmed: 17329147
Psychol Sci. 2007 Mar;18(3):247-53
pubmed: 17444922
Cognition. 2018 Aug;177:122-141
pubmed: 29677593
Psychol Rev. 1992 Apr;99(2):365-82
pubmed: 1594730
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2012 Dec;43(4):814-20
pubmed: 22727128
Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):754-70
pubmed: 18706537
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 May 2;114(18):4649-4654
pubmed: 28420792
Cognition. 2016 Nov;156:164-176
pubmed: 27591550
Cogn Sci. 2011 Aug;35(6):1052-75
pubmed: 21790743
Cogn Sci. 2017 Mar;41(2):447-481
pubmed: 26864919
Cogn Sci. 2015 Aug;39(6):1320-47
pubmed: 25382593
Exp Psychol. 2017 Mar;64(2):124-141
pubmed: 28497723
Cogn Psychol. 2010 Dec;61(4):303-32
pubmed: 20801434
Cognition. 2012 Dec;125(3):429-40
pubmed: 22959289
Cogn Psychol. 2015 Mar;77:42-76
pubmed: 25773909
Cognition. 2010 Apr;115(1):166-71
pubmed: 20070958
Top Cogn Sci. 2018 Jan;10(1):242-257
pubmed: 29152883
Cognition. 2009 Jun;111(3):364-71
pubmed: 19375075
Cogn Process. 2017 Nov;18(4):505-519
pubmed: 28612081
Mem Cognit. 2016 Apr;44(3):469-87
pubmed: 26620811
Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;37(6):1036-73
pubmed: 23855451
Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:223-47
pubmed: 25061673
Cognition. 2015 Apr;137:196-209
pubmed: 25698516
Cogn Sci. 2011 Jul;35(5):842-73
pubmed: 21609354
Cogn Sci. 2018 May;42(4):1265-1296
pubmed: 29687462