Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

People use a variety of strategies for evaluating causalclaims, including mechanistic strategies (seeking a step-by-step explanation for how a cause would bring about itseffect) and statistical strategies (examining patterns of co-occurrence). Two studies examine factors leading one orthe other of these strategies to predominate. First, generalcausal claims (e.g., “Smoking causes cancer”) areevaluated predominantly using statistical evidence,whereas statistics is less preferred for specific claims (e.g.,“Smoking caused Jack’s cancer”). Second, social andbiological causal claims are evaluated primarily throughstatistical evidence, whereas statistical evidence is deemedless relevant for evaluating physical causal claims. Weargue for a pluralistic view of causal learning on which amultiplicity of causal concepts lead to distinct strategies forlearning about causation.