@proceedings {2536,
	title = {Marbles in inaction: Counterfactual simulation and causation by omission},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	abstract = {<p>Consider\&nbsp; the\&nbsp; following\&nbsp; causal\&nbsp; explanation:\&nbsp;\&nbsp; The\&nbsp; ball\&nbsp; went through the goal because the defender didn{\textquoteright}t block it.\&nbsp; There are at least two problems with citing omissions as causal ex- planations.\&nbsp;\&nbsp; First,\&nbsp; how\&nbsp; do\&nbsp; we\&nbsp; choose\&nbsp; the\&nbsp; relevant\&nbsp; candidate omission (e.g. why the defender and not the goalkeeper). Sec- ond, how do we determine what would have happened in the relevant\&nbsp; counterfactual\&nbsp; situation\&nbsp; (i.e.\&nbsp;\&nbsp; maybe\&nbsp; the\&nbsp; shot\&nbsp; would still have gone through the goal even if it had been blocked). In this paper, we extend the counterfactual simulation model (CSM) of causal judgment (Gerstenberg, Goodman, Lagnado, \&amp; Tenenbaum, 2014) to handle the second problem. In two ex- periments, we show how people{\textquoteright}s causal model of the situation affects their causal judgments via influencing what counterfac- tuals\&nbsp; they\&nbsp; consider.\&nbsp;\&nbsp; Omissions\&nbsp; are\&nbsp; considered\&nbsp; causes\&nbsp; to\&nbsp; the extent that the outcome in the relevant counterfactual situation would have been different from what it actually was.</p>
},
	author = {Simon Stephan and Pascale Willemsen and Tobias Gerstenberg}
}
