Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference

Learning and Behavior

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 230-238

  Buehner, Marc J ^a,b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIANCE; HUMAN; INFERENTIAL STATISTICS; LEARNING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; KNOWLEDGE; MENTAL FUNCTION; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ASSOCIATION LEARNING; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MENTAL PROCESSES; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PERCEPTION; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 23844509591     PISSN: 15434494     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/bf03196065     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. ALLAN, L. G., & JENKINS, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of response alternatives. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 1-11.
2. ALLAN, L. G., TANGEN, J. M., WOOD, R., & SHAH, T. (2003). Temporal contiguity and contingency judgments: A Pavlovian analogue. Integrative Physiological & Behavior Science, 31, 205-211.
3. ANDERSON, J. R., & SHEU, C. F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory & Cognition, 23, 510-524.
4. BAKER, A. G., MURPHY, R. A., & VALLÉE-TOURANGEAU, F. (1996). Associative and normative models of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding cause. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 1-45). San Diego: Academic Press.
5. BUEHNER, M. J., CHENG, P. W., & CLIFFORD, D. (2003). From covariation to causation: A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1119-1140.
6. BUEHNER, M. J., & MAY, J. (2002). Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction. Thinking & Reasoning, 8, 269-295.
7. BUEHNER, M. J., & MAY, J. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 865-890.
8. BUEHNER, M. J., & MAY, J. (2004). Abolishing the effect of reinforcement delay on human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 179-191.
9. CHENG, P. W. (1993). Separating causal laws from casual facts: Pressing the limits of statistical relevance. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 30. Advances in research and theory (pp. 215-264). San Diego: Academic Press.
10. CHENG, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
11. COLLINS, D., & SHANKS, D. (2003). Conformity to the power PC theory depends on the type of probe question. Manuscript submitted for publication.
12. EINHORN, H. J., & HOGARTH, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3-19.
13. GALLISTEL, C. R., & GIBBON, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289-344.
14. HAGMAYER, Y., & WALDMANN, M. R. (2002). How temporal assumptions influence causal judgments. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1128-1137.
15. HAMMOND, L. J., & PAYNTER, W. E. (1983). Probabilistic contingency theories of animal conditioning: A critical analysis. Learning & Motivation, 14, 527-550.
16. HUME, D. (1888). A treatise of human nature. In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Hume's treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739)
17. JENKINS, H. M., & WARD, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 79(1, Whole No. 594), 1-17.
18. LOBER, K., & SHANKS, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review, 107, 195-212.
19. MENDELSON, R., & SHULTZ, T. R. (1976). Covariation and temporal contiguity as principles of causal inference in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 408-412.
20. MICHOTTE, A. E. (1963). The perception of causality (T. R. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen. (Original work published 1946)
21. MILLER, R. R., & BARNET, R. C. (1993). The role of time in elementary associations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 106-111.
22. PEARCE, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61-73.
23. PERALES, J. C., & SHANKS, D. R. (2003). Normative and descriptive accounts of the influence of power and contingency on causal judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 977-1007.
24. REED, P. (1992). Effect of a signaled delay between an action and outcome on human judgment of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 81-100.
25. REED, P. (1996). No evidence for blocking in human judgments of causality by stimuli presented during an outcome delay. Learning & Motivation, 27, 317-333.
26. REED, P. (1999). Role of a stimulus filling an action-outcome delay in human judgments of causal effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 92-102.
27. 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.
28. SAVASTANO, H. I., & MILLER, R. R. (1998). Time as content in Pavlovian conditioning. Behavioural Processes, 44, 147-162.
29. SCHLOTTMANN, A. (1999). Seeing it happen and knowing how it works: How children understand the relation between perceptual causality and underlying mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 35, 303-317.
30. SCHOLL, B. J., & NAKAYAMA, K. (2002). Causal capture: Contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychological Science, 13, 493-498.
31. SCHOLL, B. J., & TREMOULET, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 299-309.
32. SHANKS, D. R., & DICKINSON, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 21. Advances in research and theory (pp. 229-261). San Diego: Academic Press.
33. SHANKS, D. R., HOLYOAK, K. J., & MEDIN, D. L. (EDS.) (1996). The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 34: Causal learning. San Diego: Academic Press.
34. SHANKS, D. R., PEARSON, S. M., & DICKINSON, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139-159.
35. SIEGLER, R. S., & LIEBERT, R. M. (1974). Effects of contiguity, regularity, and age on children's causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 10, 574-579.
36. WALDMANN, M. R. (1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 47-88). San Diego: Academic Press.
37. WALDMANN, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 53-76.
38. WALDMANN, M. R. (2001). Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: Evidence from an overshadowing paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 600-608.
39. WALDMANN, M. R., & HAGMAYER, Y. (1999). How categories shape causality. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 761-766). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. 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.
41. WASSERMAN, E. A., ELEK, S. M., CHATLOSH, D. L., & BAKER, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 174-188.
42. WASSERMAN, E. A., & NEUNABER, D. J. (1986). College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 15-35.
43. WHITE, P. A. (2003). Making causal judgments from the proportion of confirming instances: The pCI rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 710-727.
44. YOUNG, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 83-104.