Causal implicatures from correlational statements
Open accessAbstract
Correlation does not imply causation, but this does not necessarily stop people from drawing causal inferences from correlational statements. We show that people do in fact infer causality from statements of association, under minimal conditions. In Study 1, participants interpreted statements of the form “X is associated with Y” to imply that Y causes X. In Studies 2 and 3, participants interpreted statements of the form “X is associated with an increased risk of Y” to imply that X causes Y. Thus, even the most orthodox correlational language can give rise to causal inferences.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People often infer causality from associations.
“People often infer causality from associations 45,46 , suggesting that overclaiming may stem as much from a cognitive 'default towards causality' as from career or institutional pressures.”
From Quantifying the prevalence and impact of overreaching causal claims in social science (2026) · cites this paper as [45]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 9 · Cited by 21
- Authors
- Gershman, S. J., & Ullman, T. D.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gershman, Samuel J.
- Ullman, Tomer D.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2023-05-18
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e0286067
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10194916
- OpenAlex
- W4377047352
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (CCF1231216)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- correlation versus causation, causal inference, risk language, causal reasoning
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Language, Causality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
