Search for: All records

Abstract Causal reasoning is a fundamental cognitive ability that enables individuals to learn about the complex interactions in the world around them. However, the mechanisms that underpin causal reasoning are not well understood. For example, it remains unresolved whether children's causal inferences are best explained by Bayesian inference or associative learning. The two experiments and computational models reported here were designed to examine whether 5‐ and 6‐year‐olds will retrospectively reevaluate objects—that is, adjust their beliefs about the causal status of some objects presented at an earlier point in time based on the observed causal status of other objects presented at a later point in time—when asked to reason about 3 and 4 objects and under varying degrees of information processing demands. Additionally, the experiments and models were designed to determine whether children's retrospective reevaluations were best explained by associative learning, Bayesian inference, or some combination of both. The results indicated that participants retrospectively reevaluated causal inferences under minimal information‐processing demands (Experiment 1) but failed to do so under greater information processing demands (Experiment 2) and that their performance was better captured by an associative learning mechanism, with less support for descriptions that rely on Bayesian inference. Research HighlightsFive‐ and 6‐year‐old children engage in retrospective reevaluation under minimal information‐processing demands (Experiment 1).Five‐ and 6‐year‐old children do not engage in retrospective reevaluation under more extensive information‐processing demands (Experiment 2).Across both experiments, children's retrospective reevaluations were better explained by a simple associative learning model, with only minimal support for a simple Bayesian model.These data contribute to our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms by which children make causal judgements.