Inference and explanation in counterfactual reasoning.
This article reports results from two studies of how people answer counterfactual questions about simple machines. Participants learned about devices that have a specific configuration of components, and they answered questions of the form "If component X had not operated [failed], would component Y have operated?" The data from these studies indicate that participants were sensitive to the way in which the antecedent state is described-whether component X "had not operated" or "had failed." Answers also depended on whether the device is deterministic or probabilistic--whether X's causal parents "always" or only "usually" cause X to operate. Participants' explanations of their answers often invoked non-operation of causally prior components or unreliability of prior connections. They less often mentioned independence from these causal elements.
Psychology Department Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. rips@northwestern.edu
Lance J
LJ
Rips
Brian J
BJ
Edwards
D001499:Bayes Theorem; D003071:Cognition; D006801:Humans; D008128:Logic; D011340:Problem Solving; D013850:Thinking
Bayes nets; Counterfactual conditionals; Explanation; Reasoning