A number of studies using trial-by-trial learning tasks have shown that judgments of covariation between a cue c and an outcome o deviate from normative metrics. Parameters based on trial-by-trial predictions were estimated from signal detection theory (SDT) in a standard causal learning task. Results showed that manipulations of P(c) when contingency ([delta]P) was held constant did not affect participants' ability to predict the appearance of the outcome (d') but had a significant effect on response criterion (c) and numerical causal judgments. The association between criterion c and judgment was further demonstrated in 2 experiments in which the criterion was directly manipulated by linking payoffs to the predictive responses made by learners. In all cases, the more liberal the criterion c was, the higher judgments were. The results imply that the mechanisms underlying the elaboration of judgments and those involved in the elaboration of predictive responses are partially dissociable.