Show simple item record


dc.creatorUribe, Miguel E.
dc.creatorAgudelo, Lina
dc.creatorHernández, Miguel
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-22T21:42:15Z
dc.date.available2019-04-22T21:42:15Z
dc.date.issued2014-04-04
dc.identifier.citationUribe, M., Agudelo, L., & Hernández, M. (2014). La inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Cheng. CULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD, 5(1). Recuperado a partir de https://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/culturaeducacionysociedad/article/view/999es_ES
dc.identifier.issn2145-9258
dc.identifier.issn2389-7724
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11323/3077
dc.description.abstractUna 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.es_ES
dc.description.abstractOne of the central theories within the explanation of causal induction (ie the process of inference that allows people to identify causes in everyday life) is the Theory of Causal Power that Patricia Cheng developed in 1997 and that she has been defending since that time (Cheng, 1997, Holyoak and Cheng, 2011). This theory aims to overcome the traditional models of mechanism and simple models of covariation that until now were considered as the explanation of the process of causal induction. However, the complexity of the mathematical model that sustains it has made it little accessible to the non-specialized community that may be interested in this field. The purpose of this article is, then, to make an introduction to the theory of causal power in which it is shown not only its explanatory advantages compared to other models, but a simple reconstruction of the mathematical model that sustains it.es_ES
dc.language.isospaes_ES
dc.publisherCorporación Universidad de la Costa
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Estados Unidos de América*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/*
dc.sourceCULTURA EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDADes_ES
dc.subjectRazonamiento causales_ES
dc.subjectTeoría del poder causales_ES
dc.subjectCausal reasoninges_ES
dc.subjectTheory of causal poweres_ES
dc.titleLa inducción causal desde la teoría del poder causal de Chenges_ES
dc.title.alternativeCausal induction from Cheng's causal power theoryes_ES
dc.typeArticlees_ES
dcterms.referencesAhn, W.-K., Bailenson, J. (1995) Cau-sal attribution as a search for un-derlying mechanisms: An explana-tion of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology 31(1). 82 -123.Ahn, W., Kalish, C.W. The role of me-chanism beliefs in causal reaso-ning. In: Keil, F.C., Wilson, R.A. eds. (2000) Explanation and cog-nition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Allan, L. G. (2003). Assessing power PC. Animal Learning & Beha-vior, 31(2), 192-204.Buehner, M., & Cheng, P. W. (1997). Causal induction: The Power PC theory versus the Rescorla–Wag-ner theory.In M. Shafto & P. Lan-gley (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 Expe-rimental 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). Co-variation in natural causal induc-tion. 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), 685-707Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. y Ho-lyoak, K. (1996) A Causal-Power Theory of Focal Sets Original; Psychology of Learning and Moti-vation, 34, 313-355Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Short article conformity to the power PC theory of causal induc-tion 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 synthe-sis. 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 psicolo-gía, 40(1), 21-34.Jacques, M., & Mercier, P. (2006). The Role of Reliability in Human Contin-gency Judgment. School of Psycholo-gy, University of Ottawa.Lien, Y., & Cheng, P. W. (2000). Dis-tinguishing genuine from spurious causes: A coherence hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 40(2), 87-137.Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on cau-sal 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), 685-693Newsome, G. L. (2003). The debate bet-ween current versions of covariation and mechanism approaches to cau-sal inference.Philosophical Psycho-logy, 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 Alter-native Potential Causes. Psychologi-cal 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 can-didate 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 cau-sal powers. Psychological Scien-ce,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.es_ES
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Revistas Científicas
    Artículos de investigación publicados en revistas pertenecientes a la Editorial EDUCOSTA.

Show simple item record

Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Estados Unidos de América
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Estados Unidos de América