Causal Judgment in the Wild: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.
Causal judgment
Causal selection
Causality
Computational modeling
Counterfactuals
Journal
Cognitive science
ISSN: 1551-6709
Titre abrégé: Cogn Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7708195
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
08
01
2022
received:
16
10
2021
accepted:
10
01
2022
entrez:
5
2
2022
pubmed:
6
2
2022
medline:
2
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
When explaining why an event occurred, people intuitively highlight some causes while ignoring others. How do people decide which causes to select? Models of causal judgment have been evaluated in simple and controlled laboratory experiments, but they have yet to be tested in a complex real-world setting. Here, we provide such a test, in the context of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Across tens of thousands of simulations of possible election outcomes, we computed, for each state, an adjusted measure of the correlation between a Biden victory in that state and a Biden election victory. These effect size measures accurately predicted the extent to which U.S. participants (N = 207, preregistered) viewed victory in a given state as having caused Biden to win the presidency. Our findings support the theory that people intuitively select as causes of an outcome the factors with the largest standardized causal effect on that outcome across possible counterfactual worlds.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35122295
doi: 10.1111/cogs.13101
pmc: PMC10015993
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13101Informations de copyright
© 2022 Cognitive Science Society LLC.
Références
Cognition. 2020 Dec;205:104410
pubmed: 32768136
Cogn Sci. 2021 Jan;45(1):e12931
pubmed: 33415814
Annu Rev Psychol. 2016;67:135-57
pubmed: 26393873
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Feb;136(1):82-111
pubmed: 17324086
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Aug;14(8):357-64
pubmed: 20576465
Cognition. 2019 Sep;190:157-164
pubmed: 31082750
Psychol Rev. 2021 Oct;128(5):936-975
pubmed: 34096754
Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;37(6):1036-73
pubmed: 23855451
Cogn Psychol. 2021 Sep;129:101412
pubmed: 34303092
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 25;9(3):e92160
pubmed: 24667309
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 1;14(8):e0219704
pubmed: 31369584
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 5;110(45):18327-32
pubmed: 24145417
Cogn Psychol. 2021 Jun;127:101396
pubmed: 34146795
Cognition. 2017 Apr;161:80-93
pubmed: 28157584
Psychol Rev. 2015 Oct;122(4):700-34
pubmed: 26437149
Cogn Sci. 2014 May-Jun;38(4):599-637
pubmed: 24467492
Psychol Sci. 2017 Dec;28(12):1731-1744
pubmed: 29039251
Cognition. 1994 Apr-Jun;50(1-3):41-77
pubmed: 8039372
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2022 Jul;151(7):1481-1501
pubmed: 34928680
Cognition. 2022 Jun;223:105036
pubmed: 35092903
Cognition. 2021 Sep;214:104806
pubmed: 34146998
Science. 2011 Mar 11;331(6022):1279-85
pubmed: 21393536
Cogn Sci. 2019 Nov;43(11):e12792
pubmed: 31742757
Cognition. 2015 Apr;137:196-209
pubmed: 25698516
Cognition. 2021 Jul;212:104708
pubmed: 33819848
Trends Cogn Sci. 2017 Sep;21(9):649-665
pubmed: 28655498
Psychol Methods. 2008 Dec;13(4):279-313
pubmed: 19071996
Psychol Monogr. 1965;79:SUPPL 1:1-17
pubmed: 14300511
Cogn Sci. 2010 Mar;34(2):175-221
pubmed: 21564210
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Mar;149(3):599-607
pubmed: 31512904