Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Cause and Effect01:53

Cause and Effect

11.9K
While variables are sometimes correlated because one does cause the other, it could also be that some other factor, a confounding variable, is actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest. For instance, as sales in ice cream increase, so does the overall rate of crime. Is it possible that indulging in your favorite flavor of ice cream could send you on a crime spree? Or, after committing crime do you think you might decide to treat yourself to a cone?
11.9K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

995
The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:
995
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I01:30

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

845
The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:
845
Causality in Epidemiology01:21

Causality in Epidemiology

1.3K
Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...
1.3K
Frustration and Conflict: Avoidance-Avoidance, Double-Approach Avoidance01:14

Frustration and Conflict: Avoidance-Avoidance, Double-Approach Avoidance

384
Avoidance-avoidance conflict refers to a psychological situation where a person must choose between two or more unpleasant alternatives. These conflicts are particularly stressful because neither option is desirable. This dilemma is often expressed in sayings like "caught between a rock and a hard place" or "between the devil and the deep blue sea." For instance, individuals who fear dental procedures may find themselves torn between enduring a painful toothache or facing the...
384
Timing and Consequences on Behavior01:08

Timing and Consequences on Behavior

263
In operant conditioning, the timing of reinforcement is crucial. For animals like rats and cats, immediate reinforcement (within a few seconds) is much more effective than delayed reinforcement. For example, a food reward for a rat needs to follow within 30 seconds of pressing a bar to be effective. 
Humans, however, can respond to delayed reinforcers. We often make decisions between immediate small rewards and delayed larger rewards. This ability to delay gratification is a significant...
263

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Mistakes in Thinking about Cognitive Science and How to Reduce Them.

eNeuro·2024
Same author

Reasoning From Quantified Modal Premises.

Cognitive science·2024
Same author

Reasoning about possibilities: Modal logics, possible worlds, and mental models.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2024
Same author

Human verifications: Computable with truth values outside logic.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2023
Same author

Iconicity bias and duration.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2023
Same author

Temporal explanations.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2023
Same journal

EXPRESS: When illusion rivals reality. Investigating error detection and the role of working memory resources in the Vanishing Ball Illusion.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Metaphors and the Body: Perceived Locations for the Self are Influenced by Conceptual Metaphor.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Age-related Differences in Recognition Memory for Discourse: The Case of Modified Words, Competitors, and Related Lures.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Exaggerated Self-Referencing in Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Post-Error Adjustments: The role of Response Stimulus Intervals and error placement.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

Mitigating the Low Prevalence Effect: Role of Removing Explicit "Target-Absent" Responses in Visual Search.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 8, 2025

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal
06:45

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Published on: April 18, 2017

6.5K

Causal conflicts produce domino effects.

Sangeet Khemlani1, P N Johnson-Laird2,3

  • 1Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006)
|September 24, 2020
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Individuals revising inconsistent beliefs often reject more information than necessary. Causal simulations lead people to deny subsequent events in a chain, violating the principle of minimal revision.

Keywords:
Inconsistencybridging inferencescausal reasoningdomino effectsmental modelsminimalism

More Related Videos

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions
10:38

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

Published on: July 16, 2015

13.9K
State-Dependency Effects on TMS: A Look at Motive Phosphene Behavior
12:38

State-Dependency Effects on TMS: A Look at Motive Phosphene Behavior

Published on: December 28, 2010

10.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 8, 2025

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal
06:45

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Published on: April 18, 2017

6.5K
A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions
10:38

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

Published on: July 16, 2015

13.9K
State-Dependency Effects on TMS: A Look at Motive Phosphene Behavior
12:38

State-Dependency Effects on TMS: A Look at Motive Phosphene Behavior

Published on: December 28, 2010

10.8K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Making
  • Belief Revision

Background:

  • Individuals encountering inconsistent beliefs face a revision dilemma.
  • Two main approaches exist: minimal revision or explaining the inconsistency's origin.
  • Previous work supported that people infer more information to resolve inconsistencies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether individuals reject more information than minimally necessary when resolving belief inconsistencies.
  • To explore the role of causal simulations in belief revision.

Main Methods:

  • Four empirical studies were conducted.
  • Participants' responses to inconsistent belief scenarios were analyzed.
  • The focus was on how individuals utilized causal simulations to reject information.

Main Results:

  • Reasoners were found to reject more information than strictly necessary to restore consistency.
  • Abandoning a causal factor led to the rejection of subsequent events in a causal chain.
  • This 'domino effect' in rejection was consistently observed across studies.

Conclusions:

  • Belief revision is not always minimal; individuals may reject excessive information.
  • Causal simulations play a crucial role in explaining inconsistencies and driving non-minimal rejections.
  • Understanding these cognitive processes is key to belief revision research.