从权变信息中判断两个因果候选者:关于一个原因的信息对另一个原因判断的影响。

Peter A White
{"title":"从权变信息中判断两个因果候选者:关于一个原因的信息对另一个原因判断的影响。","authors":"Peter A White","doi":"10.1080/02724980443000403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When judgements are being made about two causes there are eight possible kinds of contingency information: occurrences and nonoccurrences of the outcome when both causes are present, when Cause 1 alone is present, when Cause 2 alone is present, and when neither cause is present. It is proposed that contingency information is used to some extent to judge proportionate strength, which is the proportion of occurrences of the outcome that each cause can account for. This leads to a prediction that judgements of one cause will be influenced by information about occurrences, but not nonoccurrences, of the outcome when only the other cause is present. In six experiments consistent support was found for this prediction when the cause being judged had a positive relation with the outcome, but no consistent tendency was found when the cause being judged had a negative relation with the outcome. The effects found for causes with positive contingency cannot be explained by the Rescorla-Wagner model of causal judgement nor by the hypothesis that causal judgements are based on conditional contingencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":77437,"journal":{"name":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","volume":"58 6","pages":"999-1021"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02724980443000403","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judgement of two causal candidates from contingency information: II. Effects of information about one cause on judgements of the other cause.\",\"authors\":\"Peter A White\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02724980443000403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When judgements are being made about two causes there are eight possible kinds of contingency information: occurrences and nonoccurrences of the outcome when both causes are present, when Cause 1 alone is present, when Cause 2 alone is present, and when neither cause is present. It is proposed that contingency information is used to some extent to judge proportionate strength, which is the proportion of occurrences of the outcome that each cause can account for. This leads to a prediction that judgements of one cause will be influenced by information about occurrences, but not nonoccurrences, of the outcome when only the other cause is present. In six experiments consistent support was found for this prediction when the cause being judged had a positive relation with the outcome, but no consistent tendency was found when the cause being judged had a negative relation with the outcome. The effects found for causes with positive contingency cannot be explained by the Rescorla-Wagner model of causal judgement nor by the hypothesis that causal judgements are based on conditional contingencies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology\",\"volume\":\"58 6\",\"pages\":\"999-1021\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02724980443000403\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000403\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

当对两个原因作出判断时,有八种可能的偶然性信息:两个原因都存在时结果的发生和不发生,原因1单独存在时,原因2单独存在时,以及两个原因都不存在时。建议在一定程度上使用权变信息来判断比例强度,即每个原因可以解释的结果发生的比例。这导致了一种预测,即当只有另一个原因存在时,对一个原因的判断将受到结果发生信息的影响,而不是不发生信息的影响。在六个实验中,当被判断的原因与结果有正相关关系时,这种预测得到了一致的支持,但当被判断的原因与结果有负相关关系时,没有发现一致的趋势。具有积极偶然性的原因所产生的结果既不能用Rescorla-Wagner因果判断模型来解释,也不能用因果判断基于条件偶然性的假设来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judgement of two causal candidates from contingency information: II. Effects of information about one cause on judgements of the other cause.

When judgements are being made about two causes there are eight possible kinds of contingency information: occurrences and nonoccurrences of the outcome when both causes are present, when Cause 1 alone is present, when Cause 2 alone is present, and when neither cause is present. It is proposed that contingency information is used to some extent to judge proportionate strength, which is the proportion of occurrences of the outcome that each cause can account for. This leads to a prediction that judgements of one cause will be influenced by information about occurrences, but not nonoccurrences, of the outcome when only the other cause is present. In six experiments consistent support was found for this prediction when the cause being judged had a positive relation with the outcome, but no consistent tendency was found when the cause being judged had a negative relation with the outcome. The effects found for causes with positive contingency cannot be explained by the Rescorla-Wagner model of causal judgement nor by the hypothesis that causal judgements are based on conditional contingencies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信