The Collider principle in Causal reasoning: Why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard


Authors: 
Bruce D. Burns and Mareike Wieth
Volume: 
133(3)
Pages: 
online
Year: 
2004
Publisher: 
Journal of Experimental Psychology General
URL: 
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ688539&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ688539
Abstract: 

The authors tested the thesis that people find the Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) hard because they fail to understand the implications of its causal structure, a collider structure in which 2 independent causal factors influence a single outcome. In 4 experiments, participants performed better in versions of the MHD involving competition, which emphasizes causality. This manipulation resulted in more correct responses to questions about the process in the MHD and a counterfactual that changed its causal structure. Correct responses to these questions were associated with solving the MHD regardless of condition. In addition, training on the collider principle transferred to a standard version of the MHD. The MHD taps a deeper question: When is knowing about one thing informative about another?

The CAUSE Research Group is supported in part by a member initiative grant from the American Statistical Association’s Section on Statistics and Data Science Education

register