Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

Despite the increase in studies investigating people’s explana- tory preferences in the domains of psychology and philoso- phy, little is known about their preferences in more applied do- mains, such as the criminal justice system. We show that when people evaluate competing legal accounts of the same evidence that vary in complexity, their explanatory preferences are af- fected by: i) whether they are required to draw causal mod- els of the evidence, and ii) the actual structure that is drawn. Although previous research has shown that people can reason correctly about causality, ours is one of the first studies that shows that generating and drawing causal models directly af- fects people’s evaluations of explanations.