Abstract
In a recent theoretical paper, Cheng (1997) presented a new causal model, power PC. She argued that power PC was able to account for data in the literature that raised problems for associative models—notably, the Rescorla-Wagner model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). The purpose of the present paper is threefold: (1) to show that, overall, the data in the literature, which Cheng relied on to make her case, do not in fact provide support for power PC, (2) to show that, overall, the experiments reported in the literature since the publication of Cheng, designed specifically to evaluate the predictions of power PC, also do not provide support for power PC, and (3) to suggest that Cheng’s assessment of associative models was too narrowly defined.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule-based or associative?Psychological Bulletin,114, 435–448.
Allan, L. G., &Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence.Learning & Motivation,14, 381–405.
Buehner, M. J. (2001). Inducing causation: Covariation assessment and the assumption of causal power. In M. May & U. Oestermeier (Eds.),Interdisciplinary perspectives on causation (pp. 33–58). Norderstedt, Germany: Libri.
Buehner, M. J., &Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The power PC theory versus the Rescorla-Wagner model. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.),Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chapman, G. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 837–854.
Chapman, G. B., &Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Cheng, P. W., &Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,58, 545–567.
Cheng, P. W., &Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction.Psychological Review,99, 365–382.
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: Academic Press.
Dennis, M. J., &Ahn, W.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships.Memory & Cognition,29, 152–164.
Dickinson, A., &Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49B, 60–80.
Fales, E., &Wasserman, E. A. (1992). Causal knowledge: What can psychology teach philosophers?Journal of Mind & Behavior,13, 1–27.
Kao, S. F., &Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1363–1386.
Levin, I. P., Wasserman, E. A., &Kao, S. F. (1993). Multiple methods for examining biased information use in contingency judgments.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,55, 228–250.
Lober, K., &Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997).Psychological Review,107, 195–212.
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, & Cognition,24, 672–694.
Markman, A. B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck and Bower (1988).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 417–421.
Miller, R. R., Barnet, R. C., &Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model.Psychological Bulletin,117, 363–386.
Miller, R. R., &Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Rescorla, R. A. (1979). Conditioned inhibition and extinction. In A. Dickinson & R. A. Boakes (Eds.),Mechanisms of learning and motivation: A memorial volume to Jerzy Konorski (pp. 83–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Shanks, D. R. (1985a). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials.Memory & Cognition,13, 158–167.
Shanks, D. R. (1985b). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37B, 1–21.
Shanks, D. R. (1987). Acquisition functions in contingency judgment.Learning & Motivation,18, 147–166.
Shanks, D. R. (1993). Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory.British Journal of Psychology,84, 319–354.
Shanks, D. R., Holyoak, K. J., &Medin, D. L. (1996).The psychology of learning and motivation: Causal learning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Siegel, S., &Allan, L. G. (1996). The widespread influence of the Rescorla-Wagner model.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 314–321.
Tassoni, C. J. (1995). The least mean squares network with information coding: A model of cue learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 193–204.
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). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements.Learning & Motivation,25, 127–151.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A. R., &Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: Application to a theory. In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.),Inhibition and learning (pp. 301–336). London: Academic Press.
Wasserman, E. A., &Berglan, L. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgement: The role of within-compound associations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51B, 121–138.
Wasserman, E. A., Chatlosh, D. L., &Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures.Learning & Motivation,14, 406–432.
Wasserman, E. A., Dorner, W. W., &Kao, S. F. (1990). The contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 509–521.
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.
Wasserman, E. A., Kao, S., 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. 207–263). San Diego: Academic Press.
Williams, D. A. (1995). Forms of inhibition in animal and human learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,21, 129–142.
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, 92–97.
Yarlas, A. S., Cheng, P. W., &Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Alternative approaches to causal induction: The probabilistic contrast versus the Rescorla-Wagner model. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.),Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 431–436). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yates, J. F., &Curley, S. P. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement.Acta Psychologica,62, 293–302.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The preparation of this paper was supported by a grant to L.G.A. from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. From January 2001 to May 2001, a group of faculty and graduate students at McMaster met weekly to discuss the various influences of associative learning theories on current cognitive research. My task was to summarize the causal learning literature, including the debate between researchers who support an associative account of causal learning and those who do not. The other members of the group encouraged me to put my verbal critique of Cheng (1997) to paper, and this manuscript is the outcome. I thank Lee Brooks, Jason LeBoe, Bruce Milliken, and Jason Tangen for the exciting and thought-provoking discussions that occurred during those weekly meetings. The manuscript benefited greatly from the insightful suggestions made by Ralph Miller, David Shanks, and Edward Wasserman on an earlier draft.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allan, L.G. Assessing power PC. Animal Learning & Behavior 31, 192–204 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195982
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195982