title: Blocking a redundant cue: what does it say about preschoolers' causal competence?
abstract: The current study investigates the degree to which preschoolers can engage in causal inferences in a blocking paradigm, a paradigm in which a cue is consistently linked with a target, either alone (A-T) or paired with another cue (AB-T). Unlike previous blocking studies with preschoolers, we manipulated the causal structure of the events without changing the specific contingencies. In particular, cues were said to be either potential causes (prediction condition), or they were said to be potential effects (diagnosis condition). The causally appropriate inference is to block the redundant cue B when it is a potential cause of the target, but not when it is a potential effect. Findings show a stark difference in performance between preschoolers and adults: While adults blocked the redundant cue only in the prediction condition, children blocked the redundant cue indiscriminately across both conditions. Therefore, children, but not adults, ignored the causal structure of the events. These findings challenge a developmental account that attributes sophisticated machinery of causal reasoning to young children.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, USA.
authors.forename: Heidi
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kloos
authors.forename: Vladimir M
authors.initials: VM
authors.lastname: Sloutsky
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001245:Association Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D002657:Child Development; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003210:Concept Formation / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Sep;16(9):678-83
references.pmid: 16137252
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 May;10(3):281-7
references.pmid: 17444969
references.citation: Cognition. 1987 Apr;25(3):265-88
references.pmid: 3581732
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;34(7):1315-56
references.pmid: 21564249
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Nov 9;73(1):1-33
references.pmid: 10536222
references.citation: Cognition. 1991 Aug;40(1-2):83-120
references.pmid: 1786673
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jan;7(1):43-48
references.pmid: 12517358
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 1996 Feb;49(1):60-80
references.pmid: 8901386
references.citation: J Cogn Dev. 2007;8(2):159-182
references.pmid: 18458796
references.citation: Science. 2011 May 27;332(6033):1054-9
references.pmid: 21617069
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2007 Sep;43(5):1124-39
references.pmid: 17723040
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Sep;120(3):341-9
references.pmid: 21561605
references.citation: Cognition. 2000 Aug 14;76(2):B35-43
references.pmid: 10856745
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 May;10(3):322-32
references.pmid: 17444973
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Jun;119(3):403-18
references.pmid: 21392739
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 1998 May;51(2):121-38
references.pmid: 9621838
references.citation: Child Dev. 1998 Jun;69(3):742-55
references.pmid: 9680682
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Apr;115(1):104-17
references.pmid: 20097329
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2009 Mar;45(2):511-24
references.pmid: 19271835
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jan;111(1):3-32
references.pmid: 14756583
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Dec;7(4):636-45
references.pmid: 11206204
references.citation: Science. 2011 Jun 24;332(6037):1524
references.pmid: 21700866
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Dec 11;104(50):19751-6
references.pmid: 18056814
references.citation: Child Dev. 2008 May-Jun;79(3):639-51
references.pmid: 18489418
references.citation: Child Dev. 1998 Jun;69(3):721-41
references.pmid: 9680681
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Mar;21(3):329-36
references.pmid: 20424064
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1999 Jan;35(1):303-17
references.pmid: 9923484
references.citation: Science. 2011 Mar 11;331(6022):1279-85
references.pmid: 21393536
references.citation: Child Dev. 1986 Jun;57(3):559-66
references.pmid: 3720393
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2005 Jul 8;29(4):665-79
references.pmid: 21702789
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2001 Sep;37(5):620-9
references.pmid: 11552758
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2006 Nov;42(6):1103-15
references.pmid: 17087545
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2005 Dec;51(4):334-84
references.pmid: 16168981
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Jan;13(1):13-9
references.pmid: 11892773
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Feb;18(2):179-85
references.pmid: 17425540
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2004 Mar;40(2):162-76
references.pmid: 14979758
references.citation: Child Dev. 1996 Aug;67(4):1592-608
references.pmid: 8890501
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep 1;34(7):1244-1286
references.pmid: 21116483
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2007 Jan;43(1):186-96
references.pmid: 17201518
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 May;140(2):168-85
references.pmid: 21219081
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Jun;121(2):222-36
references.pmid: 1534834
references.citation: Child Dev. 2000 Sep-Oct;71(5):1205-22
references.pmid: 11108092
references.citation: Child Dev. 2006 Mar-Apr;77(2):413-26
references.pmid: 16611181
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 2002 Oct;55(4):289-310
references.pmid: 12350283
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Feb;12(1):1-23
references.pmid: 15945200
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2002 Oct;28(4):331-46
references.pmid: 12395491