Competition between multiple causes of a single outcome in causal reasoning.

A strong positive predictor of an outcome modulates the causal judgments of a moderate predictor. To study the empirical basis of this modulation, we compared treatments with one and with two strong competing (i.e., modulating) causes. This allowed us to vary the frequency of outcome occurrences or effects paired with the predictors. We investigated causal competition between positive predictors (those signaling the occurrence of the outcome), between negative predictors (those signaling the absence of the outcome) and between predictors of opposite polarity (positive and negative). The results are consistent with a contrast rather than a reduced associative strength or conditional contingency account, because a strong predictor of opposite polarity enhances rather than reduces causal estimates of moderate predictors. In addition, we found competition effects when the strong predictor predicted fewer outcome occurrences than the moderate predictor, thus implying that cue competition is, at least sometimes, a consequence of contingency rather than total cue-outcome pairings.