LAUSR

The Dual strategy model suggests that people can either use a Statistical or a Counterexample reasoning strategy, which reflects two qualitatively different way of processing information. This model has been shown to capture individual differences in a wide array of tasks, such as contingency learning. Here, we examined whether this extends to individual differences in the interpretation of contingency information where effects are ambiguous. Previous studies, using perceptually complex stimuli, have shown that the way which participants interpret ambiguous effects predicts causal judgments, In two studies, we attempted to replicate this effect using a small number of clearly identifiable cues. Results show that interpretation of ambiguous effects as effect present is related to final contingency judgments. In addition, results showed that Statistical reasoners had a stronger tendency to interpret ambiguous effects as effect present than Counterexample reasoners, which mediates the difference in contingency judgements.