Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phenomenal Causality I: Varieties and Variables

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Axiomathes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The empirical literature on phenomenal causality (i.e., the notion that causality can be perceived) is reviewed. In Part I of this two-part series, different potential types of phenomenal causality (launching, triggering, reaction, tool, entraining, traction, braking, enforced disintegration and bursting, coordinated movement, penetration, expulsion) are described. Stimulus variables (temporal gap, spatial gap, spatial overlap, direction, absolute velocity, velocity ratio, trajectory length, radius of action, size, motion type, modality, animacy) and observer variables (attention, eye movements and fixation, prior experience, intelligence, age, culture, psychopathology) that influence phenomenal causality are reviewed. This provides the necessary background for consideration in Part II (Hubbard, in press) of broader questions regarding properties of phenomenal causality, empirical and theoretical connections of phenomenal causality to other perceptual or cognitive phenomena or processes, and potential mechanisms and models of phenomenal causality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As noted by Scholl and Tremoulet (2000), there have been rigorous criticisms of Michotte’s methodology (e.g., Boyle 1960; Joynson 1971), although his methodology has also been acknowledged to reflect the standards of his time (e.g., Montpellier and Nuttin 1973).

  2. Some researchers have referred to a display in which a launcher contacts an intermediary and the target moves away from the opposite end of the intermediary as a launching effect (e.g., Buehner and Humphreys 2010). Although such a display can evoke salient qualities of launching (e.g., initial target motion is attributed to the launcher), it is not a launching effect per se. In the launching effect, the launcher contacts the target and there is no spatial gap (bridged or empty) between the final location of the launcher and the initial location of the target.

  3. Consideration of absolute velocities of the launcher and target might suggest those velocities are represented or processed relatively independently; however, Kerzel et al. (2000) reported reproductions of launcher velocity were influenced by the subsequent target velocity. Such influence occurred for causal displays and noncausal displays, and so was attributed to retroactive interference rather than to any property of perception of causality per se. Even so, it is not clear how a retroactive interference could be responsible for the differences between launching effect display and triggering effect displays found by Parovel and colleagues.

  4. The importance of movement patterns in social perception has been demonstrated in literature on biological motion and studied using point-light displays (for review, see Blake and Shiffrar 2007), but consideration of this literature is beyond the scope of this review.

  5. White (2006) argued the most active (i.e., moving) object is perceived to have the most causal influence (e.g., in the launching effect, the launcher is initially more active than the target, and so the launcher is perceived to have more causal influence). This is consistent with Rakison (2005) findings, but White focuses on differences in activity between different objects rather than within a single object. Even so, although the linkage of “more movement” and “more causal” might be true for many types of causal stimuli, there are exceptions (e.g., an initially stationary target that remains stationary after a launcher contacts that target and fragments is judged as more causal, Hubbard and Ruppel 2012; in the penetration impression, the stationary object is causal in that it stops the forward motion of the initially moving object).

  6. Perception of bouncing in the paradigm used by Tschacher and Kupper (2006) is not usually considered as an example of phenomenal causality (e.g., the initial ambiguity of the display seems incongruent with phenomenal causality), and so bouncing was not included in the list of varieties of phenomenal causality discussed earlier. However, and as pointed out in Part II, it is possible additional types of phenomenal causality beyond those discussed here will be documented by future research. Determination of whether perception of bouncing is an example of perceptual causality awaits future investigation.

References

  • Baillargeon R, Kotovsky L, Needham A (1995) The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ (eds) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 79–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassili JN (1976) Temporal and spatial contingencies in the perception of social events. J Pers Soc Psychol 33:680–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley NA (1968) The extent of individual differences in the perception of causality. Can J Psychol 22:399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belanger ND, Desrochers S (2001) Can 6-month old infants process causality in different types of causal events? Br J Develop Psychol 19:11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry DS, Springer K (1993) Structure, motion, and preschoolers’ perceptions of social causality. Ecol Psychol 5:273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry DS, Misovich SJ, Kean KJ, Baron RM (1992) Effects of disruption of structure and motion on perceptions of social causality. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 18:237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake R, Shiffrar M (2007) Perception of human motion. Annu Rev Psychol 58:47–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore SJ, Boyer P, Pachot-Clouard M, Meltzoff A, Segebarth C, Decety J (2003) The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain. Cereb Cortex 13:837–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom P, Veres C (1999) The perceived intentionality of groups. Cognition 71:B1–B9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler DM, Thommen E (2000) Attribution of mechanical and social causality to animated displays by children with autism. Autism 4:147–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle DG (1960) A contribution to the study of phenomenal causation. Q J Exp Psychol 12:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle DG (1961) The concept of the ‘radius of action’ in the causal impression. Br J Psychol 52:219–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown HV, Miles TR (1969) Prior stimulation and the perception of causality. Q J Exp Psychol 21:134–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehner MJ, Humphreys GR (2010) Causal contraction: spatial binding in the perception of collision events. Psychol Sci 21:44–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelli F, Happe F, Frith U, Frith C (2000) Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. NeuroImage 12:314–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi H, Scholl BJ (2004) Effects of grouping and attention on the perception of causality. Percept Psychophys 66:926–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchino JB, Aslin RN, Rakison DH (2011) Correspondences between what infants see and know about causal and self-propelled motion. Cognition 118:171–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LB, Amsel G (1998) Precursors to infants’ perception of the causality of a simple event. Infant Behav Dev 21:713–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LB, Oakes LM (1993) How infants perceive a simple causal event. Dev Psychol 29:421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LB, Amsel G, Redford MA, Casasola M (1998) The development of infant causal perception. In: Slater A (ed) Perceptual development: visual, auditory, and speech perception in infancy. Psychology Press, East Sussex, pp 167–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Congiu S, Schlottmann A, Ray E (2010) Unimpaired perception of social and physical causality, but impaired perception of animacy in high functioning children with autism. J Autism Dev Disorders 40:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De sa Teixeira NA, de Oliveira AM, Viegas R (2008) Functional approach to the integration of kinematic and dynamic variables in causal perception: is there a link between phenomenology and behavioral responses? Jpn Psychol Res 50:232–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers S (1999) Infants’ processing of causal and noncausal events at 3.5 months of age. J Genetic Psychol 160:294–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (1994) Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception 23:253–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falmier O, Young ME (2008) The impact of object animacy on the appraisal of causality. Am J Psychol 121:473–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher GH (1962) Phenomenal causality in conditions of intrasensory and intersensory stimulation. Am J Psychol 75:321–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fugelsang JA, Roser ME, Corballis PM, Gazzaniga MS, Dunbar KN (2005) Brain mechanisms underlying perceptual causality. Cogn Brain Res 24:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao T, Newman GE, Scholl BJ (2009) The psychophysics of chasing: a case study in the perception of animacy. Cogn Psychol 59:154–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao T, McCarthy G, Scholl BJ (2010) The Wolfpack effect: perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychol Sci 21:1845–1853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman R, Durgin F, Kaufman L (1995) Distinguishing animates and inanimates: not by motion alone. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ (eds) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 150–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IE, Day RH, Stecher EJ (1990) Perceived causality occurs with stroboscopic movement of one or both stimulus elements. Perception 19:17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber HE, Fink CD, Damm V (1957) Effects of experience on perception of causality. J Exp Psychol 53:89–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guski R, Troje NF (2003) Audiovisual phenomenal causality. Percept Psychophys 65:789–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Exp Psychol 57:243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarch I (1973) Eye movements and the perception of phenomenal causality. Psychologica Belgica 13:17–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Houssiadas L (1964) Effects of ‘set’ and intellectual level on the perception of causality. Acta Psychol 22:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (1995a) Cognitive representation of motion: evidence for representational friction and gravity analogues. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (1995b) Environmental invariants in the representation of motion: implied dynamics and representational momentum, gravity, friction, and centripetal force. Psychon Bull Rev 2:322–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (2012) Visual perception of force: comment on White (2012). Psychol Bull 138:616–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (in press) Phenomenal causality II: integration and implication. Axiomathes

  • Hubbard TL, Favretto A (2003) Naive impetus and Michotte’s “Tool Effect:” Evidence from representational momentum. Psychol Res/Psychologische Forschung 67:134–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE (2012) Ratings of causality and force in launching and shattering. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN

  • Hubbard TL, Blessum JA, Ruppel SE (2001) Representational momentum and Michotte’s (1946/1963) “Launching Effect” paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 27:294–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansson G (1964) Measurement of eye movements during a Michotte launching event. Scand J Psychol 5:153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joynson RB (1971) Michotte’s experimental methods. Br J Psychol 62:293–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanizsa G, Vicario G (1968) The perception of intentional reaction. In: Kanizsa G, Vicario G (eds) Experimental research on perception. University of Trieste, Treiste, IT, pp 71–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerzel D, Bekkering H, Wohlschläger A, Prinz W (2000) Launching the effect: representations of causal movements are influenced by what they lead to. Q J Exp Psychol 53A:1163–1185

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiritani Y (1999) Perceptual causality in the amodal completion of kinetic structures. Psychol Res/Psychologische Forschung 62:255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klin A (2000) Attributing social meaning to ambiguous visual stimuli in higher-functioning autism and asperger syndrome: the social attribution task. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 41:831–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotovsky L, Baillargeon R (1998) The development of calibration-based reasoning about collision events in young infants. Cognition 67:311–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotovsky L, Baillargeon R (2000) Reasoning about collisions involving inert objects in 7.5-month-old infants. Dev Sci 3:344–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1982) The perception of causality in infants. Perception 11:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1984) Spatiotemporal continuity and the perception of causality in infants. Perception 13:287–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1994) ToMM, ToBy, and agency: core architecture and domain specificity. In: Hirschfield L, Gelman S (eds) Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM, Keeble S (1987) Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition 25:265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levelt WJM (1962) Motion braking and the perception of causality. In: Michotte A et al (eds) Causalité, permanence et réalité phénoménales [Phenomenal causality, permanence and reality]. Publications Universitaires de Louvain, Studia Psychologica, Louvain, pp 244–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Michotte A (1963) The perception of causality (trans: Miles T, Miles E). Basic Books, New York (original work published 1946)

  • Michotte A (1991a) The emotions regarded as functional connections. In: Thinès G, Costall A, Butterworth G (eds) Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 103–116 (original work published 1950)

  • Michotte A (1991b) The perception of the “tool effect”. In: Thinès G, Costall A, Butterworth G (eds) Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception.Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 87–103 (original work published 1951)

  • Montpellier G, Nuttin JR (1973) A note on ‘Michotte’s experimental methods’ and ‘Michotte’s ideas’. Br J Psychol 64:287–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris MW, Peng K (1994) Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:949–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris MW, Nisbett RE, Peng K (1995) Causal attribution across domains and cultures. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ (eds) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 577–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura K (1985) The relationship between the development of the perception of causality and the visual ability of segregation in young children. Jpn J Educ Psychol 33:278–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura K (2006) The perception of causality as a kinetic property by young children. Jpn J Psychon Sci 25:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Natsoulas T (1960) Judgments of velocity and weight in a causal situation. Am J Psychol 73:404–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natsoulas T (1961) Principles of momentum and kinetic energy in the perception of causality. Am J Psychol 74:394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman GE, Choi H, Wynn K, Scholl BJ (2008) The origins of causal perception: evidence from postdictive processing in infancy. Cogn Psychol 57:262–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes LM (1994) Development of infants’ use of continuity cues in their perception of causality. Dev Psychol 30:869–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes LM, Cohen LB (1990) Infant perception of a causal event. Cogn Dev 5:193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olum V (1956) Developmental differences in the perception of causality. Am J Psychol 69:417–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parovel G, Casco C (2006) The psychophysical law of speed estimation in Michotte’s causal events. Vision Res 46:4134–4142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parovel G, Casco C, Sinico M (2007) Speed overestimation in intentional reaction. Perception 36(ECVP Abstract Supplement):95

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng K, Knowles ED (2003) Culture, education, and the attribution of physical causality. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29:1272–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powesland PF (1959) The effect of practice upon the perception of causality. Can J Psychol 13:155–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakison DH (2005) A secret agent? How infants learn about the identity of objects in a causal scene. J Exp Child Psychol 91:271–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakison DH, Krogh L (2012) Does causal action facilitate causal perception in infants younger than 6 months of age? Dev Sci 15:43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakison DH, Poulin-Dubois D (2001) Development origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychol Bull 127:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray E, Schlottmann A (2007) The perception of social and mechanical causality in young children with ASD. Res Autism Spectr Disord 1:266–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimé B, Boulanger B, Laubin P, Richir M, Stroobants K (1985) The perception of interpersonal emotions originated by patterns of movement. Motiv Emot 9:241–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochat P, Morgan R, Carpenter M (1997) Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cogn Dev 12:537–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roser ME, Fugelsang JA, Dunbar KN, Corballis PM, Gazzaniga MS (2005) Dissociating processes supporting causal perception and causal inference in the brain. Neuropsychology 19:591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanabria D, Correa A, Lupianez J, Spence C (2004) Bouncing or streaming? Exploring the influence of auditory cues on the interpretation of ambiguous visual motion. Exp Brain Res 157:537–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe R, Carey S (2006) The perception of causality in infancy. Acta Psychol 123:144–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Anderson NH (1993) An information integration approach to phenomenal causality. Mem Cogn 21:785–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Shanks DR (1992) Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Q J Exp Psychol 44A:321–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Surian L (1999) Do 9-month-olds perceive causation-at-a-distance? Perception 28:1105–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Allen D, Linderoth C, Hesketh S (2002) Perceptual causality in children. Child Dev 73:1656–1677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Ray E, Mitchell A, Demetriou N (2006) Perceived social and physical causality in animated motion: spontaneous reports and ratings. Acta Psychol 123:112–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Surian L, Ray ED (2009) Causal perception of action-and-reaction sequences in 8- to 10-month-olds. J Exp Child Psychol 103:87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Ray ED, Surian L (2012) Emerging perception of causality in action-and-reaction sequences from 4 to 6 months of age: is it domain-specific? J Exp Child Psychol 112:208–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl BJ, Nakayama K (2002) Causal capture: contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychol Sci 13:493–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl BJ, Nakayama K (2004) Illusory causal crescents: misperceived spatial relations due to perceived causality. Perception 33:455–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl BJ, Tremoulet PD (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4:299–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekuler AB, Sekuler R (1999) Collisions between moving visual targets: what controls alternative ways of seeing an ambiguous display? Perception 28:415–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelke ES, Phillips A, Woodward AL (1995) Infants’ knowledge of object motion and human action. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack A (eds) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 44–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ (eds) (1995) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer K, Meier JA, Berry DS (1996) Nonverbal bases of social perception: developmental change in sensitivity to patterns of motion that reveal interpersonal events. J Nonverbal Behav 20:199–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straube B, Wolk D, Chatterjee A (2011) The role of the right parietal lobe in the perception of causality: a tDCS study. Exp Brain Res 215:315–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thommen E, Dumas A, Erskine J, Reymond J (1998) Perception and conceptualization of intentionality in children. Br J Dev Psychol 16:255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29:943–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschacher W, Kupper Z (2006) Perception of causality in schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Schizophr Bull 32:S106–S112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umetsu N (2008) The study on the “power” perception in collision events. Jpn J Psychon Sci 26:158–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir S (1978) The perception of motion: Michotte revisited. Perception 7:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (1988) Causal processing: origins and development. Psychol Bull 104:36–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (1990) Ideas about causation in philosophy and psychology. Psychol Bull 108:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2005) Visual causal impressions in the perception of several moving objects. Vis Cogn 12:395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2006) The role of activity in visual impressions of causality. Acta Psychol 123:166–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2009a) Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psychol Rev 116:580–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2009b) Property transmission: an explanatory account of the role of similarity information in causal inference. Psychol Bull 135:774–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2011a) Judgments about forces in described interactions between objects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 37:979–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2011b) Visual impression of forces between objects: entraining, enforced disintegration, and shattering. Visual Cognition 19:635–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2011c) Visual impressions of force exerted by one object on another when the objects do not come into contact. Vis Cogn 19:340–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2012a) The experience of force: the role of haptic experience of forces in visual perception of object motion and interactions, mental simulation, and motion-related judgments. Psychol Bull 138:589–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2012b) Perceptual impressions and mental simulations of force: reply to Hubbard (2012). Psychol Bull 138:624–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA, Milne A (1997) Phenomenal causality: impressions of pulling in the visual perception of objects in motion. Am J Psychol 110:573–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA, Milne A (1999) Impressions of enforced disintegration and bursting in the visual perception of collision events. J Exp Psychol Gen 128:499–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA, Milne A (2003) Visual impressions of penetration in the perception of objects in motion. Vis Cogn 10:605–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA, Pennington T (2003) Impressions of pulling in the visual perception of two moving objects by children and adults. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University

  • Willatts P (1999) Development of means-ends behavior in young infants: pulling a support to retrieve a distant object. Dev Psychol 35:651–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff P (2007) Representing causation. J Exp Psychol Gen 136:82–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff P (2008) Dynamics and the perception of causal events. In: Shipley T, Zacks J (eds) Understanding events: how humans see, represent, and act on events. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 555–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward AL (1999) Infants’ ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behav Dev 22:145–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yela M (1952) Phenomenal causation at a distance. Q J Exp Psychol 4:139–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME (1995) On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychon Bull Rev 2:83–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Falmier O (2008) Launching at a distance: the effect of spatial markers. Q J Exp Psychol 61:1356–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Sutherland S (2009) The spatiotemporal distinctiveness of direct causation. Psychon Bull Rev 16:729–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Rogers ET, Beckmann JS (2005) Causal impression: predicting when, not just whether. Mem Cogn 33:320–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA

    Timothy L. Hubbard

Authors
  1. Timothy L. Hubbard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy L. Hubbard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hubbard, T.L. Phenomenal Causality I: Varieties and Variables. Axiomathes 23, 1–42 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9198-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9198-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation