The causal induction from the theory of causal power of Cheng
Keywords:
Causal reasoning; theory of causal powerAbstract
One of the central theories within the explanation of the causal induction (i.e. , the inference process that allows the people identify causes in the everyday life) is the Theory of Causal Power that Patricia Cheng development in 1997 and that has been advocating since that time (Cheng, 1997; Holyoak & Cheng, 2011). This theory seeks to overcome the traditional mecha-nism models and simple models of co that until the time they were considered as an explanation of the process of causal induction. However the complexity of the mathematical model that sustains them has done little accessible to the non-specialized community that may be of interest in this field. The purpose of this article is, then, make an introduction to the Theory of Causal Power that shows not only its ex-planatory advantages compared to other models, but a simple reconstruction of the mathematical model that underpins it.
Downloads
References
Ahn, W.-K., Bailenson, J. (1995) Causal attribution as a search for un-derlying mechanisms: An explanation of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology 31(1). 82 -123.
Ahn, W., Kalish, C.W. The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In: Keil, F.C., Wilson, R.A. eds. (2000) Explanation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Allan, L. G. (2003). Assessing power PC. Animal Learning & Behavior, 31(2), 192-204.
Buehner, M., & Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The Power PC theory versus the Rescorla–Wagner theory. In M. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the19th annual conference of the cognitive science society (55–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buehner, M. J., Cheng, P. W., & Clifford, D. (2003). From covariation to cau-sation: A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1119 –1140.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological review, 104(2), 367.
Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99(2), 365.
Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (2005). Constraints and nonconstraints in causal learning: Reply to White (2005) and to Luhmann and Ahn (2005). 112(3), 685-707
Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. y Holyoak, K. (1996) A Causal-Power Theory of Focal Sets Original; Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 34, 313-355
Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Short article conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question.The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 59(2), 225-232.
Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135 -163.
García, R., Ramos, M., & Catena, A. (2008). El proceso de compuestos es-timulares en juicios de causalidad. Revista Latinoamericana de psicología, 40(1), 21-34.
Jacques, M., & Mercier, P. (2006). The Role of Reliability in Human Contingency Judgment. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa.
Lien, Y., & Cheng, P. W. (2000). Distinguishing genuine from spurious causes: A coherence hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 40(2), 87-137.
Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997).Psychological Review, 107(1), 195.
Luhmann, C. C., & Ann, W. K. (2005). The Meaning and Computation of Causal Power: Comment on and.Psychological review, 112(3), 685-693
Newsome, G. L. (2003). The debate between current versions of covariation and mechanism approaches to cau-sal inference.Philosophical Psychology, 16(1), 87-107.
Perales, J., & Shanks, D. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: a review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 577-596.
Spellman, B. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: contingency judgments are made while controlling for Alternative Potential Causes. Psychological Science 7(6), 337-342.
Shanks, D. (2002) Tests of the power PC theory of causal induction with ne-gative contingencies. ; Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 81-88.
Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., & Drew, S. (1998). Judging the impor-tance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the power PC theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A , 51(1), 65-84.
White, P. A. (2005) The power PC theory and causal powers: Comment on Cheng (1997) and Novick and Cheng (2004); Psychological Review, 112(3), 675-684.
Wu, M., & Cheng, P. W. (1999). Why causation need not follow from statistical association: Boundary conditions for the evaluation of generative and preventive causal powers. Psychological Science,10(2), 92-97.
White, P. A. (2004). Causal judg-ment from contingency informa-tion: A systematic test of the pCI rule.Memory & cognition, 32(3), 353-368.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2014 CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons 2020 CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD
This article is under international license Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObrasDerivadas 4.0.
The published articles are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial committee.
CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD respects the moral rights of its authors, who assign to the editorial committee the patrimonial rights of the published material. In turn, the authors inform that this work is unpublished and has not been previously published.
All articles are under a:
Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional.
English
Español (España)
_12.53_.27_p_. m_._3.png)
_12.57_.35_p_. m_._3.png)
_12.50_.37_p_. m_._3.png)
