Nazli I, Ferrari A, Huber-Huber C, de Lange F
PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0306797.
PMID: 39102398
PMC: 11299817.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306797.
Vasil N, Lombrozo T
Front Psychol. 2022; 13:911177.
PMID: 35978769
PMC: 9377274.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911177.
Beghin G, Markovits H
Mem Cognit. 2022; 50(6):1269-1283.
PMID: 35484431
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-022-01319-w.
Rubo M, Czuppon P
Wellcome Open Res. 2022; 5:137.
PMID: 35265750
PMC: 8874032.
DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16015.2.
Dehdashti S, Fell L, Bruza P
Entropy (Basel). 2020; 22(2).
PMID: 33285949
PMC: 7516589.
DOI: 10.3390/e22020174.
Causal Responsibility and Robust Causation.
Grinfeld G, Lagnado D, Gerstenberg T, Woodward J, Usher M
Front Psychol. 2020; 11:1069.
PMID: 32536893
PMC: 7269104.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01069.
The Preference for Joint Attributions Over Contrast-Factor Attributions in Causal Contrast Situations.
Wang M, Zhu M
Front Psychol. 2019; 10:1881.
PMID: 31507479
PMC: 6716399.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01881.
Recalibrating timing behavior via expected covariance between temporal cues.
De Corte B, Della Valle R, Matell M
Elife. 2018; 7.
PMID: 30387710
PMC: 6235573.
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.38790.
Privileged (Default) Causal Cognition: A Mathematical Analysis.
Danks D
Front Psychol. 2018; 9:498.
PMID: 29692752
PMC: 5902530.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00498.
Influences on headache trigger beliefs and perceptions.
Turner D, Houle T
Cephalalgia. 2017; 38(9):1545-1553.
PMID: 29082827
PMC: 5938155.
DOI: 10.1177/0333102417739310.
A contrastive account of explanation generation.
Chin-Parker S, Bradner A
Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 24(5):1387-1397.
PMID: 28762030
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1349-x.
The influence of the number of relevant causes on the processing of covariation information in causal reasoning.
Kim K, Markman A, Kim T
Cogn Process. 2016; 17(4):399-413.
PMID: 27312597
DOI: 10.1007/s10339-016-0770-9.
Single- and Dual-Process Models of Biased Contingency Detection.
Vadillo M, Blanco F, Yarritu I, Matute H
Exp Psychol. 2016; 63(1):3-19.
PMID: 27025532
PMC: 4901994.
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000309.
Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced.
Matute H, Blanco F, Yarritu I, Diaz-Lago M, Vadillo M, Barberia I
Front Psychol. 2015; 6:888.
PMID: 26191014
PMC: 4488611.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888.
How contrast situations affect the assignment of causality in symmetric physical settings.
Beller S, Bender A
Front Psychol. 2015; 5:1497.
PMID: 25620937
PMC: 4287057.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01497.
The good, the bad, and the timely: how temporal order and moral judgment influence causal selection.
Reuter K, Kirfel L, Van Riel R, Barlassina L
Front Psychol. 2014; 5:1336.
PMID: 25477851
PMC: 4235278.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01336.
Two heads are better than one, but how much? Evidence that people's use of causal integration rules does not always conform to normative standards.
Vadillo M, Ortega-Castro N, Barberia I, Baker A
Exp Psychol. 2014; 61(5):356-67.
PMID: 24614872
PMC: 4207133.
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000255.
On the origin of personal causal theories.
Young M
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 2(1):83-104.
PMID: 24203591
DOI: 10.3758/BF03214413.
Pseudocontingencies derived from categorically organized memory representations.
Vogel T, Freytag P, Kutzner F, Fiedler K
Mem Cognit. 2013; 41(8):1185-99.
PMID: 23740145
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0331-8.
Context and time in causal learning: contingency and mood dependent effects.
Msetfi R, Wade C, Murphy R
PLoS One. 2013; 8(5):e64063.
PMID: 23691147
PMC: 3655027.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064063.