Time reordered: Causal perception guides the interpretation of temporal order

We present a novel temporal illusion in which the perceived order of events is dictated by their perceived causal relationship. Participants view a simple Michotte-style launching sequence featuring 3 objects, in which one object starts moving before its presumed cause. Not only did participants re-order the events in a causally consistent way, thus violating the objective temporal order, but they also failed to recognise the clip they had seen, preferring a clip in which temporal and causal order matched. We show that the effect is not due to lack of attention to the presented events and we discuss the problem of determining whether causality affects temporal order at an early perceptual stage or whether it distorts an accurately perceived order during retrieval. Alternatively, we propose a mechanism by which temporal order is neither misperceived nor misremembered but inferred “on-demand” given phenomenal causality and the temporal priority principle, the assumption that causes precede their effects. Finally, we discuss how, contrary to theories of causal perception, impressions of causality can be generated from dynamic sequences with strong spatiotemporal deviations

The Arrow of Time through the Causal Lens: When Causal Beliefs Determine Temporal Order

Do causes always precede their effects? Can we affect the past? Or is the unidirectionality of time a consequence of the causal fabric that makes up our universe? The relationship between causality and temporality is an intriguing subject for physicists, philosophers and fans of science fiction. In psychology, causal and temporal perception have been usually studied independently. Recent research, however, has demonstrated the key role of temporal order cues in causal attribution, showing, for example, that children from a very young age expect causes to precede their effects. Here, we follow the opposite route: building on recent findings that the elapsed time between two events appears to contract when the events are assumed to be causally linked, we examined whether beliefs or perceptions of causal structure can affect the perceived temporal order. Our results point to a novel perceptual illusion that we call the "causal reordering effect": in the presence of strong causal beliefs, causal order defines temporal order; the presumed cause is seen to precede its associated effect even if, in reality, it occurs after it. We present experiments illustrating the reordering effect not only when causal relationships are recently learned but also when causality is directly perceived. In addition, we show the effect to persist despite extended exposure to the stimuli and to lead participants not only to reorder the events but also to misremember the stimuli. The perception of causality in dynamic sequences with such extreme violations of Newtonian principles conflicts with the predictions of current theories of causal perception. This observation led us to conduct a set of studies that re-evaluate the findings upon which those theories are based. Our results indicate that causal impressions are far more ubiquitous than currently thought and that previous interpretations of experimental findings conflate judgements of causality with judgements of collision faithfulness

Does the "Why" Tell Us the "When"?

Traditional approaches to human causal reasoning assume that the perception of temporal order informs judgments of causal structure. In this article, we present two experiments in which people followed the opposite inferential route: Perceptual judgments of temporal order were instead influenced by causal beliefs. By letting participants freely interact with a software-based "physics world," we induced stable causal beliefs that subsequently determined participants' reported temporal order of events, even when this led to a reversal of the objective temporal order. We argue that for short timescales, even when temporal-resolution capabilities suffice, the perception of temporal order is distorted to fit existing causal beliefs

Concreteness and abstraction in everyday explanation

A number of philosophers argue for the value of abstraction in explanation. According to these prescriptive theories, an explanation becomes superior when it leaves out details that make no difference to the occurrence of the event one is trying to explain (the explanandum). Abstract explanations are not frugal placeholders for improved, detailed future explanations but are more valuable than their concrete counterparts because they highlight the factors that do the causal work, the factors in the absence of which the explanandum would not occur. We present several experiments that test whether people follow this prescription (i.e., whether people prefer explanations with abstract difference makers over explanations with concrete details and explanations that omit descriptively accurate but causally irrelevant information). Contrary to the prescription, we found a preference for concreteness and detail. Participants rated explanations with concrete details higher than their abstract counterparts and in many cases they did not penalize the presence of causally irrelevant details. Nevertheless, causality still constrained participants' preferences: They downgraded concrete explanations that did not communicate the critical causal properties

Causation without realism

Current theories of causality from visual input predict causal impressions only in the presence of realistic interactions, sequences of events that have been frequently encountered in the past of the individual or of the species. This strong requirement limits the capacity for 1-shot induction and, thus, does not sit well with our abilities for rapid creative causal learning, as illustrated, for example, by the effortless way we adapt to new technology. We present 4 experiments (N = 720) that reveal strong causal impressions upon first encounter with collision-like sequences that the literature typically labels "noncausal." Our stimuli include both the commonly used computer-based animations and edited video sequences. Besides direct reports, we present evidence based on goal-oriented behavior that makes sense only in the presence of strong causal assumptions. Finally, we document impressions of causality in highly unrealistic sequences involving, for example, instantaneous shape or size change. In the case of the more realistic clips used in the past, causal ratings abruptly decline and approach the findings of previous work, only after a canonical collision (launch event) is presented. We argue that previously used experimental procedures conceal order effects because of participants adapting to the task and reinterpreting its demands. We discuss ways to account for this adaptation whereby people either focus on experiences of perceptual causation or take realism into account even when asked for impressions of causality

Human Vision Reconstructs Time to Satisfy Causal Constraints

The goal of perception is to infer the most plausible source of sensory stimulation. Unisensory perception of temporal order, however, appears to require no inference, because the order of events can be uniquely determined from the order in which sensory signals arrive. Here, we demonstrate a novel perceptual illusion that casts doubt on this intuition: In three experiments (N = 607), the experienced event timings were determined by causality in real time. Adult participants viewed a simple three-item sequence, ACB, which is typically remembered as ABC in line with principles of causality. When asked to indicate the time at which events B and C occurred, participants' points of subjective simultaneity shifted so that the assumed cause B appeared earlier and the assumed effect C later, despite participants' full attention and repeated viewings. This first demonstration of causality reversing perceived temporal order cannot be explained by postperceptual distortion, lapsed attention, or saccades

Causality influences children’s and adults’ experience of temporal order

Although it has long been known that time is a cue to causation, recent work with adults has demonstrated that causality can also influence the experience of time. In causal reordering (Bechlivanidis & Lagnado, 2013, 2016) adults tend to report the causally consistent order of events rather than the correct temporal order. However, the effect has yet to be demonstrated in children. Across four preregistered experiments, 4- to 10-year-old children (N = 813) and adults (N = 178) watched a 3-object Michotte-style “pseudocollision.” While in the canonical version of the clip, object A collided with B, which then collided with object C (order: ABC), the pseudocollision involved the same spatial array of objects but featured object C moving before object B (order: ACB), with no collision between B and C. Participants were asked to judge the temporal order of events and whether object B collided with C. Across all age groups, participants were significantly more likely to judge that B collided with C in the 3-object pseudocollision than in a 2-object control clip (where clear causal direction was lacking), despite the spatiotemporal relations between B and C being identical in the two clips (Experiments 1-3). Collision judgments and temporal order judgments were not entirely consistent, with some participants—particularly in the younger age range—basing their temporal order judgments on spatial rather than temporal information (Experiment 4). We conclude that in both children and adults, rather than causal impressions being determined only by the basic spatial–temporal properties of object movement, schemata are used in a top-down manner when interpreting perceptual displays