When deciding how to solve complex problems, it seems important not only to know whether an intervention is helpful but also to understand why. Therefore, the present study investigated whether explicit information about causal mechanisms enables people to distinguish between multiple interventions. It was hypothesised that mechanism information helps them appreciate indirect interventions that treat the root causes of a problem instead of just fixing its symptoms. This was investigated in an experimental hoof trimming scenario in which participants evaluated various interventions. To do so, they received causal diagrams with different types of causal information and levels of mechanistic detail. While detailed mechanism information and its embedding in the context of other influences made participants less sceptical towards indirect interventions, the effects were quite small. Moreover, it did not mitigate participants' robust preference for interventions that only fix a problem's symptoms. Taken together, the findings suggest that in order to help people choose sustainable interventions, it is not sufficient to make information about causal mechanisms available.

翻译：在决定如何解决复杂问题时，了解干预措施是否有帮助固然重要，但理解其背后的原因似乎同样关键。因此，本研究探讨了明确的因果机制信息是否能够帮助人们区分不同的干预措施。研究假设，机制信息有助于人们认识到那些针对问题根本原因而非仅仅处理其症状的间接干预措施的价值。这一假设通过一个实验性的蹄部修剪场景进行验证，参与者在该场景中评估了多种干预措施。为此，他们获得了包含不同类型因果信息和不同机制详细程度的因果图。虽然详细的机制信息及其在其他影响因素背景下的呈现，降低了参与者对间接干预措施的怀疑态度，但效果相当有限。此外，这并未缓解参与者对仅处理问题症状的干预措施的强烈偏好。综上所述，研究结果表明，仅提供因果机制信息不足以帮助人们选择可持续的干预措施。