Abstract
We report three experiments investigating whether people’s judgments about causal relationships
are sensitive to the robustness or stability of such relationships across a range of background
circumstances. In Experiment 1, we demonstrate that people are more willing to endorse causal
and explanatory claims based on stable (as opposed to unstable) relationships, even when the
overall causal strength of the relationship is held constant. In Experiment 2, we show that this
effect is not driven by a causal generalization’s actual scope of application. In Experiment 3, we
offer evidence that stable causal relationships may be seen as better guides to action. Collectively,
these experiments document a previously underappreciated factor that shapes people’s causal reasoning:
the stability of the causal relationship.