Normative and descriptive accounts of the influence of power and contingency on causal judgement

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 56 A, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 977-1007

  Perales, José C ^a   Shanks, David R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 0345060419     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980244000738     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgements: Rule-based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
2. Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgement of influence. Learning and Motivation, 14, 381-405.
3. Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., & Pan, M. (1993). Selective associations and causality judgements: Presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgements of a weaker one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 414-432.
4. Buehner, M. J., & Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The power PC theory versus the Rescorla-Wagner theory. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Catena, A., Maldonado, A., & Cándido, A. (1998). The effect of the frequency of judgement and the type of trials on covariation learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 481-495.
6. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
7. Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In H. L. Roitblat & J.-A. Meyer (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognitive science (pp. 271-302), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 545-567.
9. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
10. Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). A causal-power theory of focal sets. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Causal learning (Vol. 34, pp. 313-355). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11. Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
12. Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.
13. Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95-112.
14. Hogarth, H. J., & Einhorn, R. M. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
15. Kao, S.-F., & Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgement with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1363-1386.
16. Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Gradual unlearning and catastrophic interference: A comparison of distrubuted architectures. In W. E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 445-476). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
17. Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review, 107, 195-212.
18. López, F. J., Shanks, D. R., Almaraz, J., & Fernández, P. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgements: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 672-694.
19. Maldonado, A., Catena, A., Cándido, A., & García, I. (1999). The belief revision model: Asymmetrical effects of noncontingency on human covariation learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 27, 168-180.
20. Mandel, D. R., & Lehman, D. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgements of cause, covariation, and probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology; General, 127, 269-285.
21. McCloskey, M., & Cohen, N. J. (1989). Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 24, pp. 109-165). San Diego: Academic Press.
22. Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61-73.
23. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
24. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1-21.
25. Shanks, D. R. (1987). Acquisition functions in causality judgement. Learning and Motivation, 18, 147-166.
26. Shanks, D. R. (1989). Selectional processes in causality judgement. Memory & Cognition, 17, 27-34.
27. Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Shanks, D. R. (2002). Tests of the power PC theory of causal induction with negative contingencies. Experimental Psychology, 49, 81-88.
29. Shanks, D. R., Charles, D., Darby, R. J., & Azmi, A. (1998). Configural processes in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1353-1378.
30. Shanks, D. R., Holyoak, K. J., & Medin, D. L. (Eds.). (1996). The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31. Shanks, D. R., & López, F. J. (1996). Causal order does not affect cue selection in human associative learning. Memory & Cognition, 24, 511-522.
32. Spellman, B. A. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: Contingency judgements are made while controlling for alternative potential causes. Psychological Science, 7, 337-342.
33. Tolman, E. C., & Brunswik, E. (1935). The organism and the causal texture of the environment. Psychological Review, 42, 43-77.
34. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., & Drew, S. (1997). Causal judgements that violate the predictions of the power PC theory of causal induction. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 775-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., Drew, S., & Baker, A. G. (1998). Judging the importance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the power PC theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 65-84.
36. Van Hamme, L. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgements: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127-151.
37. Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222-236.
38. Wasserman, E. A. (1990). Detecting response-outcome relations: Toward an understanding of the causal texture of the environment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and, motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 27-82). New York: Academic Press.
39. Wasserman, E. A., Dorner, W. W., & Kao, S. F. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgements of interevent contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 509-521.
40. Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. L., & Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: The role of probability in judgements of response-outcome contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 174-188.
41. Wasserman, E. A., Kao, S.-F., Van Hamme, L. J., Katagiri, M., & Young, M. E. (1996). Causation and association. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Causal learning (Vol. 34, pp. 207-264). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42. White, P. A. (1998). Causal judgement: Use of different types of contingency information as confirmatory and disconfirmatory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 131-170.
43. Williams, D. A., Sagness, K. E., & McPhee, J. E. (1994). Configural and elemental strategies in predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 694-709.