No abstract

No abstract

Causal reasoning is a core facet of our cognitive abilities. However, the time-course of causal reasoning is not studied to its fullest. The duration of reasoning, including those that yield a reasoning error, might prove crucial in understanding the cognitive processes underlying causal reasoning. In two experiments we asked participants to make probabilistic causal inferences while manipulating external time pressure and measuring response times. We found that participants are less accurate under time pressure, which can be interpreted as a speed-accuracy-tradeoff. In addition, we found that conservative responding increased under time pressure. Surprisingly, we found that two other persistent reasoning errors - Markov violations and failures to explain away - appear insensitive to the time pressure we employed. These observations seemed related to the confidence that participants expressed in their causal judgment: Conservatism was associated with low confidence, whereas Markov violations and failures to explain were not. These findings shed doubt on existing explanations of causal reasoning that predict an association between time pressure and all reasoning errors. Our findings suggest that these errors should not be attributed to a single cognitive mechanism and emphasize the need for an understanding of causal judgements as the result of multiple processes.

The appropriateness, or acceptability, of a conditional does not just 'go with' the corresponding conditional probability. A condition of dependence is required as well (cf.

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis and interpretation. That goal can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22-items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biasedestimates of treatment effect or the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrolment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results. participated in regular conference calls, identified participants, contributed in the CONSORT meetings and drafted the manuscript. David Moher and Leah Lepage planned the CONSORT meetings, identified and secured funding, invited the participants and planned the meeting agenda. The members of the CONSORT group listed above attended the consort meetings and provided input in the revised checklist, flow diagram and/or text of this manuscript. David Moher is the Guarantor of the manuscript.