Müller S M, Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Maldonado A
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada, Spain; CEREB (Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Science), University of Erfurt, Germany.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2013 Nov;144(3):472-80. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.08.004. Epub 2013 Sep 25.
Extensive evidence suggests that people often rely on their causal beliefs in their decisions and causal judgments. To date, however, there is a dearth of research comparing the impact of causal beliefs in different domains. We conducted two experiments to map the influence of domain-specific causal beliefs on the evaluation of empirical evidence when making decisions and subsequent causal judgments. Participants made 120 decisions in a two-alternative forced-choice task, framed in either a medical or a financial domain. Before each decision, participants could actively search for information about the outcome ("occurrence of a disease" or "decrease in a company's share price") on the basis of four cues. To analyze the strength of causal beliefs, we set two cues to have a generative relation to the outcome and two to have a preventive relation to the outcome. To examine the influence of empirical evidence, we manipulated the predictive power (i.e., cue validities) of the cues. Both experiments included a validity switch, where the four selectable cues switched from high to low validity or vice versa. Participants had to make a causal judgment about each cue before and after the validity switch. In the medical domain, participants stuck to the causal information in causal judgments, even when evidence was contradictory, while decisions showed an effect of both empirical and causal information. In contrast, in the financial domain, participants mainly adapted their decisions and judgments to the cue validities. We conclude that the strength of causal beliefs (1) is shaped by the domain, and (2) has a differential influence on the degree to which empirical evidence is taken into account in causal judgments and decision making.
大量证据表明，人们在决策和因果判断中常常依赖于他们的因果信念。然而，迄今为止，缺乏对不同领域因果信念影响的比较研究。我们进行了两项实验，以描绘特定领域因果信念在决策和后续因果判断中对实证证据评估的影响。参与者在一个二选一的强制选择任务中做出120个决策，任务设定在医学或金融领域。在每次决策之前，参与者可以根据四个线索积极搜索关于结果（“疾病的发生”或“公司股价下跌”）的信息。为了分析因果信念的强度，我们将两个线索设定为与结果具有生成关系，另外两个设定为与结果具有预防关系。为了检验实证证据的影响，我们操纵了线索的预测能力（即线索效度）。两项实验都包括一个效度切换，其中四个可选线索从高效度切换到低效度，反之亦然。参与者必须在效度切换前后对每个线索做出因果判断。在医学领域，参与者在因果判断中坚持因果信息，即使证据相互矛盾，而决策则显示出实证和因果信息的双重影响。相比之下，在金融领域，参与者主要根据线索效度调整他们的决策和判断。我们得出结论，因果信念的强度（1）受领域塑造，（2）在因果判断和决策中对考虑实证证据的程度有不同影响。
