The collider principle in causal reasoning: Why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard. Burns, B. D & Wieth, M. J Exp Psychol Gen, 133(3):434-49, 2004. doi abstract bibtex The authors tested the thesis that people find the Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) hard because they fail to understand the implications of its causal structure, a collider structure in which 2 independent causal factors influence a single outcome. In 4 experiments, participants performed better in versions of the MHD involving competition, which emphasizes causality. This manipulation resulted in more correct responses to questions about the process in the MHD and a counterfactual that changed its causal structure. Correct responses to these questions were associated with solving the MHD regardless of condition. In addition, training on the collider principle transferred to a standard version of the MHD. The MHD taps a deeper question: When is knowing about one thing informative about another?
@Article{Burns2004,
author = {Bruce D Burns and Mareike Wieth},
journal = {J Exp Psychol Gen},
title = {The collider principle in causal reasoning: {W}hy the {M}onty {H}all dilemma is so hard.},
year = {2004},
number = {3},
pages = {434-49},
volume = {133},
abstract = {The authors tested the thesis that people find the Monty Hall dilemma
(MHD) hard because they fail to understand the implications of its
causal structure, a collider structure in which 2 independent causal
factors influence a single outcome. In 4 experiments, participants
performed better in versions of the MHD involving competition, which
emphasizes causality. This manipulation resulted in more correct
responses to questions about the process in the MHD and a counterfactual
that changed its causal structure. Correct responses to these questions
were associated with solving the MHD regardless of condition. In
addition, training on the collider principle transferred to a standard
version of the MHD. The MHD taps a deeper question: When is knowing
about one thing informative about another?},
doi = {10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.434},
keywords = {Causality, Choice Behavior, Humans, Logic, Michigan, Probability, Problem Solving, 15355148},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"crmru2ZRZhaMEQgB6","bibbaseid":"burns-wieth-thecolliderprincipleincausalreasoningwhythemontyhalldilemmaissohard-2004","author_short":["Burns, B. D","Wieth, M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["Bruce","D"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Burns"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Mareike"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wieth"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"J Exp Psychol Gen","title":"The collider principle in causal reasoning: Why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard.","year":"2004","number":"3","pages":"434-49","volume":"133","abstract":"The authors tested the thesis that people find the Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) hard because they fail to understand the implications of its causal structure, a collider structure in which 2 independent causal factors influence a single outcome. In 4 experiments, participants performed better in versions of the MHD involving competition, which emphasizes causality. This manipulation resulted in more correct responses to questions about the process in the MHD and a counterfactual that changed its causal structure. Correct responses to these questions were associated with solving the MHD regardless of condition. In addition, training on the collider principle transferred to a standard version of the MHD. The MHD taps a deeper question: When is knowing about one thing informative about another?","doi":"10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.434","keywords":"Causality, Choice Behavior, Humans, Logic, Michigan, Probability, Problem Solving, 15355148","bibtex":"@Article{Burns2004,\n author = {Bruce D Burns and Mareike Wieth},\n journal = {J Exp Psychol Gen},\n title = {The collider principle in causal reasoning: {W}hy the {M}onty {H}all dilemma is so hard.},\n year = {2004},\n number = {3},\n pages = {434-49},\n volume = {133},\n abstract = {The authors tested the thesis that people find the Monty Hall dilemma\n\t(MHD) hard because they fail to understand the implications of its\n\tcausal structure, a collider structure in which 2 independent causal\n\tfactors influence a single outcome. In 4 experiments, participants\n\tperformed better in versions of the MHD involving competition, which\n\temphasizes causality. This manipulation resulted in more correct\n\tresponses to questions about the process in the MHD and a counterfactual\n\tthat changed its causal structure. Correct responses to these questions\n\twere associated with solving the MHD regardless of condition. In\n\taddition, training on the collider principle transferred to a standard\n\tversion of the MHD. The MHD taps a deeper question: When is knowing\n\tabout one thing informative about another?},\n doi = {10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.434},\n keywords = {Causality, Choice Behavior, Humans, Logic, Michigan, Probability, Problem Solving, 15355148},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Burns, B. D","Wieth, M."],"key":"Burns2004","id":"Burns2004","bibbaseid":"burns-wieth-thecolliderprincipleincausalreasoningwhythemontyhalldilemmaissohard-2004","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Causality","Choice Behavior","Humans","Logic","Michigan","Probability","Problem Solving","15355148"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","dataSources":["xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE","TXa55dQbNoWnaGmMq"],"keywords":["causality","choice behavior","humans","logic","michigan","probability","problem solving","15355148"],"search_terms":["collider","principle","causal","reasoning","monty","hall","dilemma","hard","burns","wieth"],"title":"The collider principle in causal reasoning: Why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard.","year":2004}