Causal Cognition in Human and Nonhuman Animals: A Comparative, Critical Review

Literature Cited

1. Ahn W, Kalish CW, Medin DL, Gelman SA. 1995. The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition 54:299–352 [Google Scholar]
2. Aitken MR, Dickinson A. 2005. Simulations of a modified SOP model applied to retrospective revaluation of human causal learning. Learn. Behav. 33:147–59 [Google Scholar]
3. Allan LG. 2003. Assessing Power PC. Learn. Behav. 32:192–204 [Google Scholar]
4. Balleine BW, Espinet A, Gonzalez F. 2005. Perceptual learning enhances retrospective revaluation of conditioned flavor preferences in rats. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 31:341–50 [Google Scholar]
5. Beckers T, De Houwer J, Pineno O, Miller RR. 2005. Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31:238–49 [Google Scholar]
6. Beckers T, Miller RR, De Houwer J, Urushihara K. 2006. Reasoning rats: forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 135:92–102This important paper shows that rats are sensitive to outcome additivity and maximality effects. [Google Scholar]
7. Blaisdell AP, Bristol AS, Gunther LM, Miller RR. 1998. Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: support for the comparator hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 24:335–51 [Google Scholar]
8. Blaisdell AP, Miller RR. 2001. Conditioned inhibition produced by extinction-mediated recovery from the relative stimulus validity effect: a test of acquisition and performance models of empirical retrospective revaluation. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 27:48–58 [Google Scholar]
9. Blaisdell AP, Sawa K, Leising KJ, Waldmann MR. 2006. Causal reasoning in rats. Science 311:1020–22A provocative and seminal experiment suggesting that the causal Bayes net formalism may be appropriate for nonhuman as well as human subjects. [Google Scholar]
10. Buehner MJ, Cheng PW, Clifford D. 2003. From covariation to causation: a test of the assumption of causal power. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 29:1119–40 [Google Scholar]
11. Call J. 2004. Inferences about the location of food in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus). J. Comp. Psychol. 118:232–41The author presents evidence that nonhuman apes are able to reason diagnostically in a “causal-logical” fashion. [Google Scholar]
12. Call J. 2006. Descartes' two errors: reason and reflection in the great apes. In Rational Animals ed. S Hurley, M Nudds pp. 219–34 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
13. Carey S. 1985. Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
14. Castro L, Wasserman EA. 2005. Associative learning in animals and humans. Presented at Online Conf. Causality, organized by Inst. Cogn. Sci., Lyon and Univ. Geneva. http://www.interdisciplines.org/causality/ [Google Scholar]
15. Chapman GB. 1991. Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 17:837–54 [Google Scholar]
16. Chappell J. 2006. Avian cognition: understanding tool use. Curr. Biol. 16:244–45 [Google Scholar]
17. Chappell J, Kacelnik A. 2002. Tool selectivity in a nonprimate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus Moneduloides). Anim. Cogn. 5:71–78 [Google Scholar]
18. Chappell J, Kacelnik A. 2004. Selection of tool diameter by New Caledonian crows. Anim. Cogn. 7:121–27 [Google Scholar]
19. Cheng PW. 1997. From covariation to causation: a causal power theory. Psychol. Rev. 104:367–405 [Google Scholar]
20. Cheng PW, Holyoak KJ. 1995. Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: causality, contingency and prediction. In Comparative Approaches to Cognition ed. JA Meyer, HL Roitblat pp. 271–302 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
21. Cheng PW, Novick LR, Liljeholm M, Ford C. 2006. Explaining four psychological asymmetries in causal reasoning: implications of causal assumptions for coherence. In Topics in Contemporary Philosophy (Vol. 4): Explanation and Causation ed. M O'Rourke. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
22. Clayton NS, Dickinson A. 2006. Rational rats. Science 9:472–74 [Google Scholar]
23. Clayton NS, Griffiths DP, Emery NJ, Dickinson A. 2001. Elements of episodic-like memory in animals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 356:1483–91 [Google Scholar]
24. Danks D. 2006. Causal learning from observations and manipulations. In Thinking with Data ed. M Lovett, P Shah. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. In press [Google Scholar]
25. Danks D. 2005. The supposed competition between theories of human causal inference. Philos. Psychol. 2:259–72 [Google Scholar]
26. De Houwer J. 2002. Forward blocking depends on retrospective inferences about the presence of the blocked cue during the elemental phase. Mem. Cogn. 30:24–33 [Google Scholar]
27. De Houwer J, Beckers T. 2002a. Higher-order retrospective revaluation in human causal learning. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. B 55:137–51 [Google Scholar]
28. De Houwer J, Beckers T. 2002b. Second-order backward blocking and unovershadowing in human causal learning. Exp. Psychol. 49:27–33 [Google Scholar]
29. De Houwer J, Beckers T. 2003. Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. B 56:345–57 [Google Scholar]
30. De Houwer J, Beckers T, Glautier S. 2002. Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 55:965–85 [Google Scholar]
31. De Houwer J, Beckers T, Vandorpe S. 2005. Evidence for the role of higher order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena. Learn. Behav. 33:239–49 [Google Scholar]
32. Denniston JC, Savastano HI, Blaisdell AP, Miller RR. 2003. Cue competition as a retrieval deficit. Learn. Motiv. 34:1–31 [Google Scholar]
33. Denniston JC, Savastano HI, Miller RR. 2001. The extended comparator hypothesis: learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In Handbook of Contemporary Learning Theories ed. RR Mowrer, SB Klein pp. 65–117 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
34. Dickinson A. 2001. Casual learning: an associative analysis. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54B:3–25 [Google Scholar]
35. Dickinson A, Balleine B. 2000. Causal cognition and goal-directed action. In The Evolution of Cognition ed. CM Heyes, L Huber pp. 185–204 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
36. Dickinson A, Burke J. 1996. Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. B 49:60–80 [Google Scholar]
37. Fodor JA. 2003. Hume Variations. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
38. French RM. 2002. The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6:200–5 [Google Scholar]
39. Gallistel CR. 2003. Conditioning from an information processing perspective. Behav. Process. 61:1–13 [Google Scholar]
40. Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN. eds. 2001. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
41. Gillan DJ, Premack D, Woodruff G. 1981. Reasoning in the chimpanzee: I. Analogical reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 7:1–17 [Google Scholar]
42. Glymour C. 2003. Learning, prediction and causal Bayes nets. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7:43–48 [Google Scholar]
43. Gopnik A, Glymour C, Sobel D, Schulz L, Kushnir T, Danks D. 2004. A theory of causal learning in children: causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychol. Rev. 111:1–31 [Google Scholar]
44. Gopnik A, Meltzoff AN. 1997. Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
45. Gopnik A, Schulz L. 2004. Mechanisms of theory formation in young children. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8:371–77 [Google Scholar]
46. Griffiths A, Tenenbaum JB. 2005. Structure and strength in causal induction. Cogn. Psychol. 51:334–84 [Google Scholar]
47. Hagmayer Y, Sloman SA, Lagnado DA, Waldmann MR. 2007. Causal reasoning through intervention. In Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy and Computation ed. A Gopnik, L Schulz. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
48. Hauser MD. 1997. Artifactual kinds and functional design features: what a primate understands without language. Cognition 64:285–308 [Google Scholar]
49. Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C. 1999. Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus oedipus. Anim. Behav. 57:565–82 [Google Scholar]
50. Hauser MD, Pearson H, Seelig D. 2002a. Ontogeny of tool use in cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus: innate recognition of functionally relevant features. Anim. Behav. 64:299–311 [Google Scholar]
51. Hauser MD, Santos LR. 2006. The evolutionary ancestry of our knowledge of tools: from percepts to concepts. In Creations of the Mind: Essays on Artefacts and Their Representation ed. E Margolis, S Lawrence. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
52. Hauser MD, Santos LR, Spaepen GM, Pearson HE. 2002b. Problem solving, inhibition and domain-specific experience: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Anim. Behav. 64:387–96 [Google Scholar]
53. Heyes CM, Papineau D. 2005. Rational or associative? Imitation in Japanese quail. In Rational Animals? ed. M Nudds, S Hurley pp. 187–196 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
54. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P. 1997. The analogical mind. Am. Psychol. 52:35–44 [Google Scholar]
55. Jenkins HM, Ward WC. 1965. Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychol. Monog. 79:(Suppl. 1)1–17 [Google Scholar]
56. Kamin LJ. 1969. Selection association and conditioning. In Fundamental Issues in Associative Learning ed. NJ Mackintosh pp. 42–64 Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
57. Keil F. 1989. Concepts, Kinds and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
58. Lagnado DA, Sloman SA. 2002. Learning causal structure. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society ed. B Bel, I Marlien pp. 560–65 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
59. Lagnado DA, Sloman SA. 2004. The advantage of timely intervention. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn Mem. Cogn. 30:856–76 [Google Scholar]
60. Lagnado DA, Waldmann MR, Hagmayer Y, Sloman SA. 2007. Beyond covariation: cues to causal structure. In Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy and Computation ed. A Gopnik, L Schultz. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
61. Lien Y, Cheng PW. 2000. Distinguishing genuine from spurious causes: a coherence hypothesis. Cogn. Psychol. 40:87–137 [Google Scholar]
62. Limongelli L, Boysen ST, Visalberghi E. 1995. Comprehension of cause-effect relations in a tool-using task by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J. Comp. Psychol. 109:18–96 [Google Scholar]
63. Lober K, Shanks DR. 2000. Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng 1997. Psychol. Rev. 107:195–212 [Google Scholar]
64. Lovibond PF, Been SL, Mitchell CJ, Bouton ME, Frohardt R. 2003. Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Mem. Cogn. 31:133–42 [Google Scholar]
65. Macho S, Burkart J. 2002. Recursive retrospective revaluation of causal judgments. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28:1171–86 [Google Scholar]
66. Marcus GF. 2001. The Algebraic Mind: Integrating Connectionism and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
67. Melchers KG, Lachnit H, Shanks DR. 2004. Within compound associations in retrospective revaluation and in direct learning: a challenge for comparator theory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 57B:25–53 [Google Scholar]
68. Miller RR, Matute H. 1996. Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 18:251–64 [Google Scholar]
69. Pearce JM, Bouton ME. 2001. Theories of associative learning in animals. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:111–39 [Google Scholar]
70. Pearl J. 2000. Causality. London: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
71. Perales JC, Shanks DR. 2003. Normative and descriptive accounts of the influence of power and contingency on causal judgment. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 56A:977–1007 [Google Scholar]
72. Piaget J. 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
73. Povinelli DJ. 2000. Folk Physics for Apes. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
74. Povinelli DJ. 2004. Behind the apes' appearance: escaping anthropomorphism in the study of other minds. Daedalus: J. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. Winter pp. 29–41 [Google Scholar]
75. Povinelli DJ, Bering JM, Giambrone S. 2000. Toward a science of other minds: escaping the argument by analogy. Cogn. Sci. 24:509–41 [Google Scholar]
76. Povinelli DJ, Dunphy-Lelii S. 2001. Do chimpanzees seek explanations? Preliminary comparative investigations. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 55:185–93 [Google Scholar]
77. Premack D, Premack AJ. 1994. Levels of causal understanding in chimpanzees and children. Cognition 50:347–62 [Google Scholar]
78. Reboul A. 2005. Similarities and differences between human and nonhuman causal cognition. Presented at Online Conf. Causality, organized by Inst. Cogn. Sci., Lyon and Univ. Geneva. http://www.interdisciplines.org/causality/ [Google Scholar]
79. Rescorla RA. 1968. Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 66:1–5 [Google Scholar]
80. Rescorla RA, Wagner AR. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory ed. AH Black, WF Prokasy pp. 64–99 New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts [Google Scholar]
81. Santos LR, Hauser MD, Spelke ES. 2001. Recognition and categorization of biologically significant objects by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): the domain of food. Cognition 82:127–55 [Google Scholar]
82. Santos LR, Hauser MD, Spelke ES. 2002. Domain-specific knowledge in human children and nonhuman primates: artifacts and food. In The Cognitive Animal ed. M Bekoff, C Allen, GM Burghardt pp. 269–81 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
83. Santos LR, Miller CT, Hauser MD. 2003. Representing tools: how two nonhuman primate species distinguish between the functionally relevant and irrelevant features of a tool. Anim. Cogn. 6:269–81 [Google Scholar]
84. Santos LR, Pearson H, Spaepen G, Tsao F, Hauser M. 2006. Probing the limits of tool competence: experiments with two nontool-using species (Cercopithecus aethiops and Saguinus oedipus). Anim. Cogn. 9:94–109Researchers present nontool-using monkeys with tasks designed to mirror those that had previously challenged chimpanzees. [Google Scholar]
85. Seed AM, Tebbich S, Emery NJ, Clayton NS. 2006. Investigating physical cognition in rooks (Corvus frugilegus). Curr. Biol. 16:697–701The authors present an exceedingly clever twist on the traditional trap-tube task to seven rooks, a nontool-using species of corvid. [Google Scholar]
86. Shanks DR. 1985. Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 37B:1–21 [Google Scholar]
87. Shanks DR. 1995. The Psychology of Associative Learning. London: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
88. Shanks DR. 2006. Associationism and cognition: human contingency learning at 25. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 59 In press [Google Scholar]
89. Shettleworth SJ. 1998. Cognition, Evolution and Behavior. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
90. Shevill I, Hall G. 2004. Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 57B:331–47 [Google Scholar]
91. Spelke E. 1994. Initial knowledge: six suggestions. Cognition 50:433–47 [Google Scholar]
92. Spirtes P, Glymour C, Scheines R. eds. 2001. Causation, Prediction, and Search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
93. Steyvers M, Tenenbaum JB, Wagenmakers EJ, Blum B. 2003. Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cogn. Sci. 27:453–89 [Google Scholar]
94. Stout SC, Miller RR. 2006. Sometimes competing retrieval (SOCR): a formalization of the comparator hypothesis. Psychol. Rev. Manuscr. submitted [Google Scholar]
95. Tebbich S, Seed AM, Emery NJ, Clayton NS. 2006. Non-tool-using rooks (Corvus frigilegus) solve the trap-tube task. Anim. Cogn. In press [Google Scholar]
96. Tenenbaum JB, Griffiths TL. 2003. Theory-based causal induction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ed. S Becker, S Thrun, K Obermayer pp. 35–42 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
97. Tenenbaum JB, Griffiths TL, Niyogi S. 2006. Intuitive theories as grammars for causal inference. In Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation ed. A Gopnik, L Schulz. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
98. Van Hamme LL, Wasserman EA. 1994. Cue competition in causality judgments: the role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learn. Motiv. 25:127–51 [Google Scholar]
99. Van Overwalle F, Timmermans B. 2001. Learning about an absent cause: discounting and augmentation of positively and independently related causes. In Connectionist Models of Learning, Development and Evolution: Proceedings of the Sixth Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop ed. RM French, JP Sougne pp. 219–28 London: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
100. Vandorpe S, De Houwer J, Beckers T. 2005. Further evidence for the role of inferential reasoning in forward blocking. Mem. Cogn. 33:1047–56 [Google Scholar]
101. Visalberghi E, Fragaszy DM, Savage-Rumbaugh ES. 1995. Performance in a tool-using task by common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J. Comp. Psychol. 109:52–60 [Google Scholar]
102. Visalberghi E, Limongelli L. 1994. Lack of comprehension of cause-effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J. Comp. Psychol. 108:15–22 [Google Scholar]
103. Visalberghi E, Tomasello M. 1998. Primate causal understanding in the physical and psychological domains. Behav. Process. 42:189–203 [Google Scholar]
104. Visalberghi E, Trinca L. 1989. Tool use in capuchin monkeys: distinguishing between performance and understanding. Primates 30:511–21 [Google Scholar]
105. Vonk J, Povinelli DJ. 2006. Similarity and difference in the conceptual systems of primates: the unobservability hypothesis. In Comparative Cognition ed. T Zentall, EA Wasserman pp. 363–87 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
106. Waldmann MR. 1996. Knowledge-based causal induction. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation ed. DR Shanks, KJ Holyoak, DL Medin pp. 47–88 San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
107. Waldmann MR, Hagmayer Y. 2001. Estimating causal strength: the role of structural knowledge and processing effort. Cognition 82:27–58 [Google Scholar]
108. Waldmann MR, Hagmayer Y. 2005. Seeing versus doing: two modes of accessing causal knowledge. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31:216–27 [Google Scholar]
109. Waldmann MR, Holyoak KJ. 1992. Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: asymmetries in cue competition. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 121:222–36 [Google Scholar]
110. Wasserman EA, Berglan LR. 1998. Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgement: the role of within-compound associations. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. B 51:121–38 [Google Scholar]
111. Wasserman EA, Castro L. 2005. Surprise and change: variations in the strength of present and absent cues in causal learning. Learn. Behav. 33:131–46 [Google Scholar]
112. Wasserman EA, Miller RR. 1997. What's elementary about associative learning. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 48:573–607 [Google Scholar]
113. Weir AAS, Chappell J, Kacelnik A. 2002. Shaping of hooks in New Caledonian crows. Science 297:981 [Google Scholar]
114. Woodward J. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]