Short article conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question
Authors:
Darrell J. Collins a;
David R. Shanks b
| Affiliations: | a University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia |
| b University College London, London, UK |
DOI:
10.1080/17470210500370457
Publication Frequency:
12 issues per year
Published in:
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Volume
59,
Issue
2
February
2006
, pages 225
- 232
Subjects:
Cognitive Psychology;
Comparative Psychology;
Number of References: 17
Formats available:
HTML
(English)
:
PDF
(English)
Previously published as:
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
(0033-555X)
until 1981
Also incorporating: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
Also incorporating: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B
View Article:
View Article (PDF)
View Article (HTML)
Abstract
P. W. Cheng's (1997) power PC theory of causal induction proposes that causal estimates are based on the power (P) of a potential cause, where P is the contingency between the cause and effect normalized by the base rate of the effect. Most previous research using a standard causal probe question has failed to support the predictions of the power PC model but recently Buehner, Cheng, and Clifford (2003) found that participants responded in terms of causal power when probed with a counterfactual test question, which they argued prompted participants to consider the base rate of the effect. However, Buehner et al. framed their counterfactual question in terms of frequency, a factor that has been demonstrated to decrease base rate neglect in judgements under uncertainty. In the experiment reported here, we sought to disentangle the influence of counterfactual and frequency framing of the probe question to determine which factor is responsible for encouraging responses in terms of causal power.
|
| view references (17) : view citations |

Download Citation


CiteULike
Del.icio.us
BibSonomy
Connotea