期刊文献+

取样大小对不同因果推理问题强度估计的影响研究 被引量:1

The Influence of Sample Size on Causal-Strength Judgments of Different Contingency
下载PDF
导出
摘要 使用纸笔测验探讨表格集中呈现信息条件下取样大小对单一因果关系强度推理的影响,并比较五种模型:△P、效力PC、SS效力、Support和χ2的预测与实验数据的相关。结果显示:(1)取样大小对不同的问题有不同的影响,高取样在△P=0时导致了低估汁值,在0〈|△P|=PPC时没有效果,在|△P|〈PPC时有不一致的效果,4倍取样比2倍取样有更明显的取样大小效应;(2)取样大小效应更一致地出现在PPC与|△P|不相等且PPC值较高的问题中;(3)虽然Suppoa模型和ss效力模型都能预测取样大小因素在所有问题上的作用方式,但取样大小效应并不如因果支持模型所预测的那么强大,在两种因果方向条件下SS效力模型都能最好地预测被试的反应。 Participant's judgment on causal strength can vary with sample size of contingency. Griffiths & Tenenbaum (2005) show that sample size can affect participant's judgment on contingency with △P = 0. But Lu et al. (2008) found that sample size has an effect on contingency with △P 〉 0 in the opposite direction, and high power - PC can offset low sample size. Then, what is the effect of sample size on contingencies with different △P and Power- PC? The research conducted an experiment to investigate whether participant's cansal judgment of seven contingencies vary with sample size. Contingency was presented on a booklet with a table format, and participants gave their causal - strength judgments under each contingency. Results show that sample size factor has different effects on different contingencies : high sample size leads to low estimate on contingency with AP = 0, but has no effect on contingency with 0 〈 |△P | = power - PC, but leads to a high estimate on contingency with | △P | 〈 power - PC = 1. Four times sample has more effect than two times sample. It seems that sample size effect is apt to emerge from the contingencies with | △P | 〈 power - PC. Meanwhile, a comparison of predictions of five models, △P, power - PC, SS, Support and χ2, was conducted. Results indicated that support and )(2 model gave some predictions contradicting participants'judgment, including lower predict on contingency with | △P | = . 33 and power - PC = . 50 than contingency with | △P | = . 33 and power - PC --- . 33, and lower predict on contingency with | △P | . 33 and power - PC = 1 than contingency with | △P | = power - PC = . 67. Support and SS model could predict sample size effect on each contingency, but the effectiveness of sample size was not so powerful as the prediction of the support model, while SS was the best model to predict the participants" performance in two kinds of causal direction.
出处 《心理科学》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2013年第3期716-721,共6页 Journal of Psychological Science
基金 江西省社会科学"十一五"(2010年)规划重点项目(10JY05)的资助
关键词 因果推理 取样大小 Support模型 SS效力模型 causal inference, sample size, Support -model, SS -model
  • 相关文献

参考文献17

  • 1王墨耘,傅小兰.因果力比较范式下对效力PC理论的检验[J].心理学报,2004,36(2):160-167. 被引量:6
  • 2王墨耘,傅小兰.用不同外部表征方式集中呈现信息条件下的因果力判断[J].心理学报,2004,36(3):298-306. 被引量:9
  • 3Anderson, J. R.,& Sheu, C. F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory & Cognition, 23, 510 - 524.
  • 4Buhner M. J, Cheng P. W. & Clliford 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.
  • 5Cheng,P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation : a causal power theory. Psychological Review ,104,361 - 405.
  • 6Greville,W. J.,& Buehner,M. J. (2010) . Temporal Predictability Facilitates Causal Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology : General ,139 ,756 - 771.
  • 7Griffiths, T. L.,& Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005 ). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51,334 - 384.
  • 8Jenkins, H.,& Ward, W. ( 1965 ) . Judgment of contingencies between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 7,1 - 17.
  • 9Luhmann, C. C.,& Ahn, W. K. (2011 ) . Expextations and Intrerpreta-tions During Causal Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37 f 568 - 587.
  • 10Liljeholm, M.,& Cheng, P. W. (2009) . The influence of virtual sample size on confidence and causal - strength judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning,Memory,and Cognition,35, 157 - 172.

二级参考文献30

  • 1Waldmann M R. Knowledge-based causal induction. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 1996, 34:47~88
  • 2Rescorla R A, Wagner A R. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Black A H, Prokasy W Feds. Classical Conditioning Ⅱ: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton, 1972. 64~99
  • 3Baker A G, et al. Association and normative models of causal induction: reacting to versus understanding cause. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 1996, 34:1~46
  • 4Cheng P W, Novick L R. A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1990, 58: 545~567
  • 5Cheng P W. From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. PsychologicalReview, 1997, 104:367~405
  • 6White P A. Making causal judgments from the proportion of confirming instances: the pCI rule. (in press)
  • 7Allan L G. Human contingency judgments: Rule~based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 1993, 114:435~448
  • 8Wasserman E A, et al. Causation and association. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 1996, 34:207~264
  • 9Shanks D R, Lober K. Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). 2000, Psychological Review,107:195~212
  • 10White P A. Perceiving a strong causal relation in a weak contingency: Further investigation of the evidential evaluation model of causal judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2002, 55A: 97~114

共引文献11

同被引文献11

  • 1Buehner, M.J., & Cheng, P.W. (1997). Causal induction: The power PC theory versus the RW model. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Preeeeedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cogmave Science Society (pp. 55-69). HiUsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
  • 2Buehner, 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 Corition , 29, 1119-1140.
  • 3Cheng, P.W. (1997). From covariation to causation : A causal power theory. Psyehological Review, 104,367-405.
  • 4Cheng, P. W., & Buehner, M. J. (2012). Causal learning and inference. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison. Oxford handbook of thinking andreasonlng. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
  • 5Hume, D. (1987). A treatise of human nature (2nd ecl.). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
  • 6Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135-63.
  • 7Jenkins, H., & Ward, W. (1965). Judgment of contingencies between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 7, 1-17.
  • 8Liljeholm, M., & Cheng, P.W. (2009). The influence of virtual sample size on confidence and causal-strength judgments. Journal of ExperimentM Psyeholosy: Learning, Memory, and CognMon, 35, 157-172.
  • 9Lober, K., & Shanks, D.R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review, 107, 195-212.
  • 10White. (2009). Accounting for occurrences: An explanation for some novel tendencies in causal judgment from contingency information. Memory and Cognition, 37, 500-513.

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部