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

Fundamental Attribution Error01:14

Fundamental Attribution Error

12.9K
According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is...
12.9K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

370
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:
370
Cause and Effect01:53

Cause and Effect

10.9K
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?
10.9K
Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

6.5K
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the...
6.5K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I01:30

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

343
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:
343
Causality in Epidemiology01:21

Causality in Epidemiology

483
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...
483

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Causal information changes how we reason: a mixed-methods analysis of decision-making with causal information.

Frontiers in cognition·2026
Same author

A comparison of methods to elicit causal structure.

Frontiers in cognition·2026
Same author

Teleological language or teleological thinking?

Cognition·2026
Same author

Subcategory vs category fluency: Items and networks in healthy young adults and simulation with a large language model.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same author

Free recall of semantically related words reveals similarity structure.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same author

The Developmental Approach to Autism Science: Considering Cognitive Ability in the Age of Neuroimaging Research.

Developmental psychobiology·2025
Same journal

Evidence for abstract spatial concept learning in young animals.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Blurred lines or clear boundaries? Synchrony and social dominance shape domain-specific self-other processing.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Knowability predicts curiosity and learning.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Throwing good effort after bad: Evidence for a sunk-cost effect in cognitive effort-based decision-making.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Cross-linguistic differences in incremental planning under uncertainty.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Sensory attenuation scales with the strength of action-outcome coupling: A psychophysical study.

Cognition·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 22, 2025

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

759

Not so simple! Causal mechanisms increase preference for complex explanations.

Jeffrey C Zemla1, Steven A Sloman2, Christos Bechlivanidis3

  • 1Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States of America.

Cognition
|July 21, 2023
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

People prefer explanations with causal mechanisms, even if more complex. Understanding causal mechanisms enhances comprehension, influencing how we evaluate explanations.

Keywords:
Causal networksExplanationMechanismsSimplicity

More Related Videos

Studying Food Reward and Motivation in Humans
12:09

Studying Food Reward and Motivation in Humans

Published on: March 19, 2014

23.5K
Dissociation of the Confounding Influences of Expectancy and Integrative Difficulty Residing in Anomalous Sentences in Event-related Potential Studies
05:22

Dissociation of the Confounding Influences of Expectancy and Integrative Difficulty Residing in Anomalous Sentences in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: May 9, 2019

5.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 22, 2025

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

759
Studying Food Reward and Motivation in Humans
12:09

Studying Food Reward and Motivation in Humans

Published on: March 19, 2014

23.5K
Dissociation of the Confounding Influences of Expectancy and Integrative Difficulty Residing in Anomalous Sentences in Event-related Potential Studies
05:22

Dissociation of the Confounding Influences of Expectancy and Integrative Difficulty Residing in Anomalous Sentences in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: May 9, 2019

5.4K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Philosophy of Science

Background:

  • Causal explanations are fundamental to human cognition.
  • The role of mechanisms in causal explanations is debated.
  • Simplicity is often considered a virtue in explanations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how the inclusion of causal mechanisms affects the evaluation of explanations.
  • To explore the relationship between explanation complexity and adherence to simplicity principles.
  • To understand how mechanistic information influences the sense of understanding.

Main Methods:

  • Five experiments were conducted to test hypotheses.
  • Participants evaluated explanations with and without explicit mechanisms.
  • Factors influencing explanation preference and perceived understanding were analyzed.

Main Results:

  • Explanations including causal mechanisms were evaluated differently.
  • The presence of mechanisms reduced adherence to the simplicity principle.
  • More complex explanations with mechanistic details promoted a greater sense of understanding.

Conclusions:

  • Causal mechanisms provide a distinct basis for evaluating explanations beyond mere probability.
  • Mechanistic information, even in complex explanations, enhances understanding.
  • The inclusion of mechanisms shifts the focus from parsimony to a deeper account of causal networks.