Literature DB >> 12882378

Assessing power PC.

Lorraine G Allan1.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12882378     DOI: 10.3758/bf03195982

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  16 in total

1.  Primacy in causal strength judgments: the effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships.

Authors:  M J Dennis; W K Ahn
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-01

2.  Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997).

Authors:  K Lober; D R Shanks
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.

Authors:  G B Chapman; S J Robbins
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1990-09

Review 4.  Covariation in natural causal induction.

Authors:  P W Cheng; L R Novick
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Contingency judgment: primacy effects and attention decrement.

Authors:  J F Yates; S P Curley
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1986-08

6.  Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials.

Authors:  D R Shanks
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1985-03

7.  Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.

Authors:  E A Wasserman; W W Dorner; S F Kao
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 8.  Human instrumental learning: a critical review of data and theory.

Authors:  D R Shanks
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  1993-08

Review 9.  Human contingency judgments: rule based or associative?

Authors:  L G Allan
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 17.737

10.  Forms of inhibition in animal and human learning.

Authors:  D A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1995-04
View more
  6 in total

1.  Temporal contiguity and contingency judgments: a Pavlovian analogue.

Authors:  Lorraine G Allan; Jason M Tangen; Robert Wood; Taral Shah
Journal:  Integr Physiol Behav Sci       Date:  2003 Jul-Sep

2.  The effectiveness of inhibitors in human predictive judgments depends on the strength of the positive predictor.

Authors:  Danielle M Karazinov; Robert A Boakes
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Models of covariation-based causal judgment: a review and synthesis.

Authors:  José C Perales; David R Shanks
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-08

Review 4.  Comparing associative, statistical, and inferential reasoning accounts of human contingency learning.

Authors:  Oskar Pineño; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  Causal and predictive-value judgments, but not predictions, are based on cue-outcome contingency.

Authors:  Miguel A Vadillo; Ralph R Miller; Helena Matute
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.986

6.  Two heads are better than one, but how much? Evidence that people's use of causal integration rules does not always conform to normative standards.

Authors:  Miguel A Vadillo; Nerea Ortega-Castro; Itxaso Barberia; A G Baker
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2014
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.