ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Cognit.
Sec. Reason and Decision-Making
Volume 4 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fcogn.2025.1544387
This article is part of the Research TopicCausal Cognition in Humans and Machines - Volume IIView all articles
A Comparison of Methods to Elicit Causal Structure
Provisionally accepted- 1Brown University, Providence, United States
- 2Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
We compare two methods to elicit graphs from people that represent the causal structure of common artifacts. One method asks participants to focus narrowly on local causal relations and is based on the “make-a-difference” view of causality, specifically on an interventional theory of causality and so we call it “Intervention.” It asks subjects to answer a series of counterfactual questions. The second method draws directly from the graphical aspect of Causal Bayesian Networks and allows people to consider causal structure at a more global level. It involves drawing causal graphs using an online interface called “Loopy.” This method does not depend on a definition of causal relatedness. We use signal detection theory to analyze the likelihoods of people generating correct and incorrect causal relations (hit rates and false alarm rates, respectively) using each method. The results show that the intervention method leads people to generate more accurate causal models.
Keywords: causality, Causal Bayes nets, Graphical Models, Counterfactual reasoning, Mental represantations
Received: 12 Dec 2024; Accepted: 25 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Tatlidil, Sloman, Basu, Tran, Saxena, Kim and Bahar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Steven A. Sloman, Brown University, Providence, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.