Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32056060›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2020

How causal information affects decisions.

Min Zheng, Jessecae K Marsh, Jeffrey V Nickerson, Samantha Kleinberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Min ZhengComputer Science Department, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1 Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ, 07030, US.
Jessecae K MarshDepartment of Psychology, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, US.
Jeffrey V NickersonSchool of Business, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1 Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ, 07030, US.
Samantha KleinbergComputer Science Department, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1 Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ, 07030, US. samantha.kleinberg@stevens.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6964-3272
Stevens Institute of Technology · USLehigh University · US

Funding

BIGDATA: Causal Inference in Large-Scale Time Series with Rare and Latent EventsR01LM011826 · NLM · THE TRUSTEES OF THE STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI KLEINBERG, SAMANTHA · 2013 to 2024
$3.3M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011826
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCausality is inherently linked to decision-making, as causes let us better predict the future and intervene to change it by showing which variables have the capacity to affect others. Recent advances in machine learning have made it possible to learn causal models from observational data. While these models have the potential to aid human decisions, it is not yet known whether the output of these algorithms improves decision-making. That is, causal inference methods have been evaluated on their accuracy at uncovering ground truth, but not the utility of such output for human consumption. Simply presenting more information to people may not have the intended effects, particularly when they must combine this information with their existing knowledge and beliefs. While psychological studies have shown that causal models can be used to choose interventions and predict outcomes, that work has not tested structures of the complexity found in machine learning, or how such information is interpreted in the context of existing knowledge.

resultsThrough experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk, we study how people use causal information to make everyday decisions about diet, health, and personal finance. Our first experiment, using decisions about maintaining bodyweight, shows that causal information can actually lead to worse decisions than no information at all. In Experiment 2, we test decisions about diabetes management, where some participants have personal domain experience and others do not. We find that individuals without such experience are aided by causal information, while individuals with experience do worse. Finally, our last two experiments probe how prior experience interacts with causal information. We find that while causal information reduces confidence in individuals with prior experience, it has the opposite effect on those without experience. In Experiment 4 we show that our results are not due to an inability to use causal models, and that they may be due to familiarity with a domain rather than actual knowledge.

conclusionWhile causal inference can potentially lead to more informed decisions, we find that more work is needed to make causal models useful for the types of decisions found in daily life.

Indexed as

Decision MakingModels, TheoreticalAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultBayesian networksCausalityDecision-making

Identifiers

PMID32056060
PMCPMC7018903
OpenAlexW3011981198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.