La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng
Una de las teorías centrales dentro de la explicación de la inducción causal (i.e. el proceso de inferencia que permite a las personas identificar causas en la cotidianidad) es la Teoría del Poder Causal que Patricia Cheng desarrolló en 1997 y que ha venido defendiendo desde esa época (Cheng, 1997;...
- Autores:
-
Uribe, Miguel E.
Agudelo, Lina
Hernández, Miguel
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of journal
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2014
- Institución:
- Corporación Universidad de la Costa
- Repositorio:
- REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/11067
- Acceso en línea:
- https://hdl.handle.net/11323/11067
https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/view/999
- Palabra clave:
- Razonamiento causal; teoría del poder causal
Causal reasoning; theory of causal power
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD - 2014
| id |
RCUC2_c6a471d09113fbb7cced98ec4785064a |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/11067 |
| network_acronym_str |
RCUC2 |
| network_name_str |
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng |
| dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv |
The causal induction from the theory of causal power of Cheng |
| title |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng |
| spellingShingle |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng Razonamiento causal; teoría del poder causal Causal reasoning; theory of causal power |
| title_short |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng |
| title_full |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng |
| title_fullStr |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng |
| title_full_unstemmed |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng |
| title_sort |
La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng |
| dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Uribe, Miguel E. Agudelo, Lina Hernández, Miguel |
| dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv |
Uribe, Miguel E. Agudelo, Lina Hernández, Miguel |
| dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv |
Razonamiento causal; teoría del poder causal |
| topic |
Razonamiento causal; teoría del poder causal Causal reasoning; theory of causal power |
| dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
Causal reasoning; theory of causal power |
| description |
Una de las teorías centrales dentro de la explicación de la inducción causal (i.e. el proceso de inferencia que permite a las personas identificar causas en la cotidianidad) es la Teoría del Poder Causal que Patricia Cheng desarrolló en 1997 y que ha venido defendiendo desde esa época (Cheng, 1997; Holyoak y Cheng, 2011). Dicha teoría pretende superar los tradicionales modelos de mecanismo y los simples modelos de covariación que hasta el momento se consideraban como la explicación del proceso de inducción causal. Sin embargo la complejidad del modelo matemático que la sustenta la ha hecho poco accesible a la comunidad no especializada que se pueda interesar en este campo. El propósito del presente artículo es, entonces, realizar una introducción a la teoría de poder causal en la que se muestra no sólo sus ventajas explicativas frente a los otros modelos, sino una reconstrucción sencilla del modelo matemático que la sustenta. |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-04-04 00:00:00 2024-04-09T19:52:22Z |
| dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-04-04 00:00:00 2024-04-09T19:52:22Z |
| dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-04-04 |
| dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv |
Artículo de revista |
| dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1 |
| dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv |
Text |
| dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv |
Journal article |
| dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART |
| dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| format |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
2145-9258 |
| dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/11323/11067 |
| dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/view/999 |
| dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv |
2389-7724 |
| identifier_str_mv |
2145-9258 2389-7724 |
| url |
https://hdl.handle.net/11323/11067 https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/view/999 |
| dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv |
spa |
| language |
spa |
| dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv |
Cultura Educación Sociedad |
| dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv |
Ahn, W.-K., Bailenson, J. (1995) Causal attribution as a search for un-derlying mechanisms: An explanation of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology 31(1). 82 -123. Ahn, W., Kalish, C.W. The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In: Keil, F.C., Wilson, R.A. eds. (2000) Explanation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Allan, L. G. (2003). Assessing power PC. Animal Learning & Behavior, 31(2), 192-204. Buehner, M., & Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The Power PC theory versus the Rescorla–Wagner theory. In M. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the19th annual conference of the cognitive science society (55–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Buehner, M. J., Cheng, P. W., & Clifford, D. (2003). From covariation to cau-sation: A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1119 –1140. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological review, 104(2), 367. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99(2), 365. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (2005). Constraints and nonconstraints in causal learning: Reply to White (2005) and to Luhmann and Ahn (2005). 112(3), 685-707 Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. y Holyoak, K. (1996) A Causal-Power Theory of Focal Sets Original; Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 34, 313-355 Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Short article conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question.The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 59(2), 225-232. Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135 -163. García, R., Ramos, M., & Catena, A. (2008). El proceso de compuestos es-timulares en juicios de causalidad. Revista Latinoamericana de psicología, 40(1), 21-34. Jacques, M., & Mercier, P. (2006). The Role of Reliability in Human Contingency Judgment. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa. Lien, Y., & Cheng, P. W. (2000). Distinguishing genuine from spurious causes: A coherence hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 40(2), 87-137. Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997).Psychological Review, 107(1), 195. Luhmann, C. C., & Ann, W. K. (2005). The Meaning and Computation of Causal Power: Comment on and.Psychological review, 112(3), 685-693 Newsome, G. L. (2003). The debate between current versions of covariation and mechanism approaches to cau-sal inference.Philosophical Psychology, 16(1), 87-107. Perales, J., & Shanks, D. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: a review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 577-596. Spellman, B. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: contingency judgments are made while controlling for Alternative Potential Causes. Psychological Science 7(6), 337-342. Shanks, D. (2002) Tests of the power PC theory of causal induction with ne-gative contingencies. ; Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 81-88. Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., & Drew, S. (1998). Judging the impor-tance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the power PC theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A , 51(1), 65-84. White, P. A. (2005) The power PC theory and causal powers: Comment on Cheng (1997) and Novick and Cheng (2004); Psychological Review, 112(3), 675-684. 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(2), 92-97. White, P. A. (2004). Causal judg-ment from contingency informa-tion: A systematic test of the pCI rule.Memory & cognition, 32(3), 353-368. |
| dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv |
1 |
| dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv |
5 |
| dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/download/999/pdf_216 |
| dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv |
Núm. 1 , Año 2014 : Cultura Educación y Sociedad |
| dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv |
CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD - 2014 |
| dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD - 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv |
Universidad de la Costa |
| dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/view/999 |
| institution |
Corporación Universidad de la Costa |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstream/11323/11067/1/ORE.xml |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
dcc1f186d4d7e7c2086056a7555bac91 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Universidad de La Costa |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repdigital@cuc.edu.co |
| _version_ |
1808400019717357568 |
| spelling |
Uribe, Miguel E.941db2ab17f571443ecd8b2a07b95448500Agudelo, Lina35821e10472e9f5875f2113d0fb9b852500Hernández, Miguel5db1632e3abdf717a5ec5f9c70e32a085002014-04-04 00:00:002024-04-09T19:52:22Z2014-04-04 00:00:002024-04-09T19:52:22Z2014-04-042145-9258https://hdl.handle.net/11323/11067https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/view/9992389-7724Una de las teorías centrales dentro de la explicación de la inducción causal (i.e. el proceso de inferencia que permite a las personas identificar causas en la cotidianidad) es la Teoría del Poder Causal que Patricia Cheng desarrolló en 1997 y que ha venido defendiendo desde esa época (Cheng, 1997; Holyoak y Cheng, 2011). Dicha teoría pretende superar los tradicionales modelos de mecanismo y los simples modelos de covariación que hasta el momento se consideraban como la explicación del proceso de inducción causal. Sin embargo la complejidad del modelo matemático que la sustenta la ha hecho poco accesible a la comunidad no especializada que se pueda interesar en este campo. El propósito del presente artículo es, entonces, realizar una introducción a la teoría de poder causal en la que se muestra no sólo sus ventajas explicativas frente a los otros modelos, sino una reconstrucción sencilla del modelo matemático que la sustenta.One of the central theories within the explanation of the causal induction (i.e. , the inference process that allows the people identify causes in the everyday life) is the Theory of Causal Power that Patricia Cheng development in 1997 and that has been advocating since that time (Cheng, 1997; Holyoak & Cheng, 2011). This theory seeks to overcome the traditional mecha-nism models and simple models of co that until the time they were considered as an explanation of the process of causal induction. However the complexity of the mathematical model that sustains them has done little accessible to the non-specialized community that may be of interest in this field. The purpose of this article is, then, make an introduction to the Theory of Causal Power that shows not only its ex-planatory advantages compared to other models, but a simple reconstruction of the mathematical model that underpins it.application/pdfspaUniversidad de la CostaCULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD - 2014https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessEsta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/view/999Razonamiento causal; teoría del poder causalCausal reasoning; theory of causal powerLa inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de ChengThe causal induction from the theory of causal power of ChengArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Cultura Educación SociedadAhn, W.-K., Bailenson, J. (1995) Causal attribution as a search for un-derlying mechanisms: An explanation of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology 31(1). 82 -123. Ahn, W., Kalish, C.W. The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In: Keil, F.C., Wilson, R.A. eds. (2000) Explanation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Allan, L. G. (2003). Assessing power PC. Animal Learning & Behavior, 31(2), 192-204. Buehner, M., & Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The Power PC theory versus the Rescorla–Wagner theory. In M. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the19th annual conference of the cognitive science society (55–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Buehner, M. J., Cheng, P. W., & Clifford, D. (2003). From covariation to cau-sation: A test of the assumption of causal power. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1119 –1140. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological review, 104(2), 367. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99(2), 365. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (2005). Constraints and nonconstraints in causal learning: Reply to White (2005) and to Luhmann and Ahn (2005). 112(3), 685-707 Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. y Holyoak, K. (1996) A Causal-Power Theory of Focal Sets Original; Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 34, 313-355 Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Short article conformity to the power PC theory of causal induction depends on the type of probe question.The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 59(2), 225-232. Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135 -163. García, R., Ramos, M., & Catena, A. (2008). El proceso de compuestos es-timulares en juicios de causalidad. Revista Latinoamericana de psicología, 40(1), 21-34. Jacques, M., & Mercier, P. (2006). The Role of Reliability in Human Contingency Judgment. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa. Lien, Y., & Cheng, P. W. (2000). Distinguishing genuine from spurious causes: A coherence hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 40(2), 87-137. Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997).Psychological Review, 107(1), 195. Luhmann, C. C., & Ann, W. K. (2005). The Meaning and Computation of Causal Power: Comment on and.Psychological review, 112(3), 685-693 Newsome, G. L. (2003). The debate between current versions of covariation and mechanism approaches to cau-sal inference.Philosophical Psychology, 16(1), 87-107. Perales, J., & Shanks, D. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: a review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 577-596. Spellman, B. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: contingency judgments are made while controlling for Alternative Potential Causes. Psychological Science 7(6), 337-342. Shanks, D. (2002) Tests of the power PC theory of causal induction with ne-gative contingencies. ; Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 81-88. Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., & Drew, S. (1998). Judging the impor-tance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the power PC theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A , 51(1), 65-84. White, P. A. (2005) The power PC theory and causal powers: Comment on Cheng (1997) and Novick and Cheng (2004); Psychological Review, 112(3), 675-684. 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(2), 92-97. White, P. A. (2004). Causal judg-ment from contingency informa-tion: A systematic test of the pCI rule.Memory & cognition, 32(3), 353-368.15https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/download/999/pdf_216Núm. 1 , Año 2014 : Cultura Educación y SociedadOREORE.xmltext/xml2650https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstream/11323/11067/1/ORE.xmldcc1f186d4d7e7c2086056a7555bac91MD51open access11323/11067oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/110672024-04-09 14:52:22.518An error occurred on the license name.|||https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/metadata only accessRepositorio Universidad de La Costarepdigital@cuc.edu.co |