Base-rate expectations modulate the causal illusion - Fig 4

Mean proportion of “evidence” answers to the evidential value questions in Experiment 1, by type of trial: cells a, b, c, and d. Error bars depict 95% CIs for the mean.</p

Contingency table for one potential cause and one outcome.

Contingency table for one potential cause and one outcome.</p

Indexes obtained for the two models, ΔP and Power PC, computed from the actual training data in Experiment 1.

The models cannot be computed for some participants (due to division by zero errors), so these cases are removed.</p

Descriptive statistics of the five judgments collected in Experiment 1.

Descriptive statistics of the five judgments collected in Experiment 1.</p

Scatter plot depicting the relation between P(C) and causal judgments in the two groups of Experiment 1, including marginal densities.

Shaded areas represent 95% CIs for the regression slopes.</p

Base-rate expectations modulate the causal illusion - Fig 2

Mean causal judgments in each group of Experiment 1 (high base-rate of the outcome) and Experiment 2 (low base-rate of the outcome). Error bars represent 95% CIs for the mean.</p

Evidential value questions in Experiment 1: Marginal estimated means (logit scale).

Evidential value questions in Experiment 1: Marginal estimated means (logit scale).</p

Scatter plot depicting the relation between P(C) and causal judgments in the two groups of Experiment 2, including marginal densities.

Note that the fitted regression lines are relatively flat in both groups, suggesting that the two variables are not linearly related (see main text). Shaded areas represent 95% CIs for the regression slopes.</p

Evidential value questions in Experiment 2: Marginal estimated means (logit scale).

Evidential value questions in Experiment 2: Marginal estimated means (logit scale).</p

Descriptive statistics of the five judgments collected in Experiment 2.

Descriptive statistics of the five judgments collected in Experiment 2.</p