Short article conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 225-232

  Collins, Darrell J ^a   Shanks, David R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CAUSALITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROBABILITY; SOFTWARE;

EID: 33645082690     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210500370457     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
2. 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.
3. 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, and Cognition, 29, 1119-1140.
4. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
5. Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). Momentary and integrative response strategies in causal judgment. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1138-1147.
6. De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., & Glautier, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 965-985.
7. Gigerenzer, G. (1994). Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa). In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability (pp. 129-161). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
8. Gredebäck, G., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2000). Rational assessments of covariation and causality. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 190-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review, 107, 195-212.
10. López, F. J., Shanks, D. R., Almaraz, J., & Fernández, P. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 67.
11. Matute, H., Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 182-196.
12. Matute, H., Vegas, S., & de Marez, P. (2002). Flexible use of recent information in causal and prédictive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 714-725.
13. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Perales, J. C., & Shanks, D. (2003). Normative and descriptive accounts of the influence of power and contingency on causal judgment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 977-1007.
15. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials. Memory & Cognition, 13, 158-167.
16. Sloman, S. A., Over, D., Slovak, L, & Stibel, J. M. (2003). Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 296-309.
17. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., & Drew, S. (1997). Causal judgments 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.