Do ideas about function help in the study of causation?

2005 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Sherry
Keyword(s):  
Causal Analysis ◽  
Magnetic Orientation ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Disassortative Mating ◽  
Fundamental Distinction ◽  
Food Storing ◽  
Barn Owls ◽  
Auditory Localisation ◽  
Understanding Function

AbstractOne of Tinbergen's most lasting contributions to the study of behaviour was the distinction he drew between causal, functional, developmental, and evolutionary questions about behaviour. More recently, behavioural ecologists have claimed that understanding the function of behaviour is an important step towards understanding its causes. This claim has, in turn, been criticised for confusing the fundamental distinction that Tinbergen defined. The study of behaviour, however, usually begins by identifying units of behaviour functionally and only then proceeds to causal analysis. Research carried out on four phenomena — disassortative mating by MHC loci, memory for cache sites in food-storing birds, auditory localisation of prey by barn owls, and magnetic orientation — illustrates the contributions made to causal research through understanding the function of behaviour. Understanding function, and sometimes simply a hypothesis about function, defines the causal questions that are asked, identifies novel questions for causal investigation, and sets the criteria that causal explanations must satisfy.

Effect of Ecological Pressures on Brains: Examples from Avian Neuroethology and General Meanings

1998 ◽  
Vol 53 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 560-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hermann Wagner ◽  
Harald Luksch
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Niche ◽  
Bird Song ◽  
Avian Species ◽  
Ecological Niches ◽  
Ecological Situation ◽  
Life Styles ◽  
Attentional Switching ◽  
Food Storing ◽  
Barn Owls

Abstract Comparative neuroethological research emphasizes that brains of animals have been shaped by the specific demands and constraints imposed by the ecological niche that a species occupies. Since avian species have developed very diverse life styles and occupy extreme ecological niches, bird brains should show many specializations, which may be revealed in species that have survived under high ecological pressures. In this paper, we will give several examples of adaptations, in which we are able to correlate structural and physiological spe­cializations to the specific ecological demands: adaptations found to nocturnal hunting in barn owls, the characteristics of bird song and its underlying neurobiological correlates, retinopetal projections and their relation to peripheral attentional switching, looming detection, and adaptations related to memory capacities of food-storing birds. We stress especially that the analysis of the animal’s ecological situation is important in understanding the factors that shaped both behavior and the neuronal substrate.

Function and mechanism in neuroecology: looking for clues

2005 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Bolhuis
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
Song Learning ◽  
Cognitive Ecology ◽  
Food Storing ◽  
History Of ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Behavioural Biology ◽  
Evolution Function

AbstractThe four questions that Niko Tinbergen identified for behavioural biology — evolution, function, development and causation — are all important and should be studied in their own right. Recently, there has been a debate as to whether these four questions should be investigated separately or whether they should be integrated. Integration of the four questions has been attempted in novel research disciplines such as cognitive ecology, evolutionary psychology and neuroecology. Euan Macphail and I have criticised these integrative approaches, suggesting that they are fundamentally flawed as they confound function and mechanism. Investigating the function or evolutionary history of a behaviour or cognitive system is important and entirely legitimate. However, such investigations cannot provide us with answers to questions about the mechanisms underlying behaviour or cognition. At most, functional or evolutionary considerations can provide clues that may be useful for a causal analysis of the underlying mechanisms. However, these clues can be misleading and are often wrong, as is illustrated with examples from song learning and food storing in birds. After summarising the main issues in the neuroecology debate, I discuss some misunderstandings that were apparent in the responses to our critique, as well as some recent relevant data. Recent results do not support the neuroecological approach. Finally, I suggest that the way forward is a cautious and critical use of functional and evolutionary clues in the study of the mechanisms of behaviour.

Causation: the study of behavioural mechanisms

2005 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry Hogan
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Cognition ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
Network Modelling ◽  
Jumping Spiders ◽  
The Past ◽  
Food Storing ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Level Of Analysis

AbstractThis paper describes current work on the causal analysis of behaviour systems. It is noted that while causal work investigating the neural, hormonal, and genetic bases of behaviour is flourishing, work being conducted at a strictly behavioural level of analysis has declined greatly over the past 40 years. Nonetheless, most recent research on animal cognition and applied ethology is still being carried out at a behavioural level of analysis and examples of both types of research are presented: memory mechanisms of food-storing birds and decisions of spider-eating jumping spiders, as well as feather pecking in fowl and animal welfare issues, are all briefly discussed. Finally, I discuss the similarities between neural network modelling and early ethological models of motivation, and then show how a modern version of Lorenz's model of motivation can account for current research findings on dustbathing in chickens and sleep in humans. I conclude that valuable information can still be obtained by research at a behavioural level of analysis.

Fifty shades of grue: Indeterminate categories and induction in and out of the language sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-488
Author(s):  
Matthew Spike
Keyword(s):  
Natural Kinds ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Fundamental Distinction ◽  
New Riddle Of Induction ◽  
Linguistic Categories

AbstractIt is hard to define structural categories of language (e.g. noun, verb, adjective) in a way which accounts for linguistic variation. This leads Haspelmath to make the following claims: i) unlike in biology and chemistry, there are no natural kinds in language; ii) there is a fundamental distinction between descriptive and comparative linguistic categories, and; iii) generalisations based on comparisons between languages can in principle tell us nothing about specific languages. The implication is that cross-linguistic categories cannot support scientific induction. I disagree: generalisations on the basis of linguistic comparison should inform the language sciences. Haspelmath is not alone in identifying a connection between the nature of the categories we use and the kind of inferences we can make (e.g. Goodman’s ‘new riddle of induction’), but he is both overly pessimistic about categories in language and overly optimistic about categories in other sciences: biology and even chemistry work with categories which are indeterminate to some degree. Linguistic categories are clusters of co-occurring properties with variable instantiations, but this does not mean that we should dispense with them: if linguistic generalisations reliably lead to predictions about individual languages, and if we can integrate them into more sophisticated causal explanations, then there is no a priori requirement for a fundamental descriptive/comparative distinction. Instead, we should appreciate linguistic variation as a key component of our explanations rather than a problem to be dealt with.

A Note of Caution in Causal Modelling

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 1258-1264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Donald Forbes ◽  
Edward R. Tufte
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
Causal Inferences ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Causal Modelling ◽  
General Importance ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Made In

Many empirical investigations in the behavioral sciences today aim at tracing the causes of variations in some key dependent variable. The search for satisfying causal explanations is difficult because of the complexity of social phenomena, the crudeness of the measures of many important variables, and the prevalence of simultaneous cause and effect relations among variables. Although these difficulties remain, a number of important methodological contributions have clarified the conditions under which causal inferences can be made from non-experimental data. In particular the Simon-Blalock technique has recently gained considerable attention, and has been profitably used by a number of political scientists in their research. Examination of some of these applications does, however, reveal the need for a better understanding of the purposes and limitations of the technique. This paper reviews two studies: (1) the re-analysis of the Miller-Stokes data by Cnudde and McCrone, and (2) the analysis of the determinants of Negro political participation in the South by Matthews and Prothro. We shall argue that both these applications have two faults: (1) a failure to distinguish conclusions from assumptions, and (2) an inadequate correspondence between the assumptions made in constructing the mathematical models and our prior knowledge about the phenomena being studied. In addition, we shall use the first study to illustrate a principle of general importance in causal analysis: the investigator should check the possibility that different causal mechanisms occur in different subgroups of his data. And we shall use the second study to illustrate the difficulty of separating the effects of two highly correlated independent variables.

scholarly journals A Five–Factor Theory Perspective on Causal Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert R. McCrae ◽  
Angelina R. Sutin
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
Personality Characteristics ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Causal Understanding ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Individual

Five–Factor Theory provides a broad but largely blank template for causal personality research. Within Five–Factor Theory, there are three major categories of questions: (1) how do biological structures and functions lead to trait levels? (2) how do traits and the environment give rise to acquired psychological institutions? and (3) how do personality characteristics interact with specific situations to determine behaviours and reactions? Both practical and ethical issues complicate the search for the causes of trait change. Causal explanations of the development of characteristic adaptations are likely to be incomplete, because there are many different ways in which the same adaptation may be acquired. Studies of the determinants of behaviour are usually left to social, educational, or clinical psychologists—although personality psychologists may make distinctive contributions by emphasizing the role of the individual in selecting and creating situations. A causal understanding of the functioning of the personality system is possible through the integration of many lines of evidence, but it is likely to take a very long time. In the meanwhile, personality psychologists may fruitfully pursue the identification of practical causes by which individuals with a given set of traits can optimize their adaptation. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Rationalization and internalization

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Léon Beauvois
Keyword(s):  
Phase 1 ◽  
Facilitatory Effect ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Reduction Effect ◽  
Dissonance Reduction

After having been told they were free to accept or refuse, pupils aged 6–7 and 10–11 (tested individually) were led to agree to taste a soup that looked disgusting (phase 1: initial counter-motivational obligation). Before tasting the soup, they had to state what they thought about it. A week later, they were asked whether they wanted to try out some new needles that had supposedly been invented to make vaccinations less painful. Agreement or refusal to try was noted, along with the size of the needle chosen in case of agreement (phase 2: act generalization). The main findings included (1) a strong dissonance reduction effect in phase 1, especially for the younger children (rationalization), (2) a generalization effect in phase 2 (foot-in-the-door effect), and (3) a facilitatory effect on generalization of internal causal explanations about the initial agreement. The results are discussed in relation to the distinction between rationalization and internalization.

Impact of the Locus of Causality and Internal Control on the Social Utility of Causal Explanations

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Perrin ◽  
Benoît Testé
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Social Utility ◽  
External Control ◽  
Job Interview ◽  
Locus Of Causality ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Professional Success ◽  
The Social ◽  
Different Types

Research into the norm of internality ( Beauvois & Dubois, 1988 ) has shown that the expression of internal causal explanations is socially valued in social judgment. However, the value attributed to different types of internal explanations (e.g., efforts vs. traits) is far from homogeneous. This study used the Weiner (1979 ) tridimensional model to clarify the factors explaining the social utility attached to internal versus external explanations. Three dimensions were manipulated: locus of causality, controllability, and stability. Participants (N = 180 students) read the explanations expressed by appliants during a job interview. They then described the applicants on the French version of the revised causal dimension scale and rated their future professional success. Results indicated that internal-controllable explanations were the most valued. In addition, perceived internal and external control of explanations were significant predictors of judgments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document