Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Causal reasoning studies with a focus on the Power Probabilistic Contrast Theory

힘 확률 대비 이론에 기반을 둔 인과 추론 연구

  • Park, Jooyong (Department of Psychology & Institute of Psychological Science Seoul National University)
  • 박주용 (서울대학교 심리학과 & 심리과학연구소)
  • Received : 2016.12.12
  • Accepted : 2016.12.22
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Causal reasoning is actively studied not only by psychologists but, in recent years, also by cognitive scientists taking the Bayesian approach. This paper seeks to provide an overview of the recent trends in causal reasoning research with a focus on the power probabilistic contrast theory of causality, a major psychological theory on causal inference. The power probabilistic contrast theory (PPCT) assumes that a cause is a power that initiates or inhibits the result. This power is purported be understood through statistical correlation under certain conditions. The paper examines the supporting empirical evidence in the development of PPCT. Also, introduced are the theoretical dispute between the PPCT and the model based on Bayesian approach, and the current developments and implications of research on causal invariance hypothesis, which states that cause operates identically regardless of the context. Recent studies have produced experimental results that cannot be readily explained by existing empirical approach. Therefore, these results call for serious examination of the power theory of causality by researchers in neighboring fields such as philosophy, statistics, and artificial intelligence.

인과 추론은 심리학에서는 물론 최근 베이스 접근법을 취하는 인지과학자들에 의해서도 활발히 연구되고 있다. 본 연구는 인과추론에 대한 대표적 심리학 이론인 힘-확률대비이론(a power probabilistic contrast theory of causality)을 중심으로 인과 추론의 최근 동향을 개관하고자 한다. 힘-확률대비이론에서는, 원인은 결과를 일으키거나 억제하는 힘(power)인데, 이 힘은 특정한 조건하에서 통계적 상관을 통해 파악될 수 있다고 가정한다. 본 논문에서는 이 이론에 대한 초기의 경험적 지지 증거를 먼저 살펴본 다음, 베이스 접근에 기반을 둔 이론과의 쟁점을 명확히 하고, 원인은 맥락에 무관하게 동일하게 작동한다는 인과적 불변성 가정(causal invariance hypothesis)을 중심으로 한 보다 최근의 연구 결과를 소개하고자 한다. 이 연구들은 종래의 통계적 접근법으로는 잘 설명되지 않는 결과를 제시함으로써, 철학, 통계학, 그리고 인공 지능 등과 같은 인접 분야에 인과성에 대한 힘 이론을 진지하게 고려할 것을 촉구하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박주용 (2000). 인과 추리: 철학적 배경과 힘-확률대비 이론을 중심으로. 인지과학. 18, 37-48.
  2. Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., Pineno, O., & Miller, R. R. (2005). Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 238-249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.238
  3. Buehner, M., 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 Cognition, 29, 1119-1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1119
  4. Carroll, C. D., & Cheng, P. W. (2010). The induction of hidden causes: Causal mediation and violations of independent causal influence. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 913-918). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  5. Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2008). The probabilistic mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367
  7. Cheng, P. W. & Buehner, M. (2012). Causal reasoning. In J. K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  8. Cheng, P. W., Liljeholm, M. & Sandhofer, C. (2013). Logical consistency and objectivity in causal learning. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2034-2039). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  9. Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2006). Summation in causal learning: Elemental processing or configural generalization?. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1524-1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600639389
  10. Danks, D. (2003). Equilibria of the Rescorla–Wagner model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2496(02)00016-0
  11. Glymour, C. (2001). The Mind's Arrows: Bayes Nets and Graphical Causal Models in Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Gopnik, A. & Schultz, L. (2007). Causal learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and computation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  13. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D., Schulz, L. & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two, three, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37, 620-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620
  14. Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), Handbook of computational psychology (pp. 285-386). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 285-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.06.002
  16. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review, 116, 661-716. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017201
  17. Holyoak, J. K., & Cheng, P. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131634
  18. Hume, D. (1739/1987) A treatise of human nature (2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (인간 오성의 탐구. 김혜숙 역, 고려원: 서울).
  19. Hume, D. (1777/1975). An enquiry concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (3rd edition). L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (오성에 관하여, 이준호 역, 서울: 서광서).
  20. Kamin, L. J. (1968). "Attention-like" processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9-31). Miami, FL: University of Miami Press.
  21. Kant, I. (1781). Critique of pure reason. London, UK: Penguin Books. (순수이성 비판, 백종현 역, 서울: 아카넷).
  22. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution, American Psychologist, 28, 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
  23. Leslie, Alan M. (1987). Pretense and Representation: The Origin of 'Theory of Mind'. Psychological Review, 94, 412-426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.4.412
  24. Lien, Y., & Cheng, P. W. (2000). Distinguishing genuine from spurious causes: A coherence hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 87-137. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0724
  25. Liljeholm, M., Cheng, P. W. (2007). When is a cause the "same"? Coherent generalization across contexts, Psychological Science, 18, 1014-1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02017.x
  26. Lober, K., & Shanks, D. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review, 107, 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.195
  27. Lu, H., Rojas, R. R., Beckers, T., & Yuille, A. L. (2016). A Bayesian theory of sequential causal learning and abstract transfer. Cognitive Science, 40, 404-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12236
  28. Lu, H., Yuille, A. L., Liljeholm, M., Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2008). Bayesian generic priors for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955-982. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013256
  29. Lucas C. G., Griffiths T. L. (2010). Learning the form of causal relationships using hierarchical Bayesian models. Cognitive Science, 34, 113-147.
  30. Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, 482, 27-29. https://doi.org/10.1038/482027a
  31. Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
  32. Maes, E., Boddez, Y., Alfei, J. M., Krypotos, A. -M., D'Hooge, R., De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2016). The Elusive Nature of the Blocking Effect: 15 Failures to Replicate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 145, e49-e71. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000200
  33. Meder, B., Hagmayer, Y., & Waldmann, M. R. (2008). Inferring interventional predictions from observational learning data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 75-80. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.75
  34. Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000855
  35. Novick, L. R., & Cheng, P. W. (2004). Assessing interactive causal influence. Psychological Review, 111, 455-485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.455
  36. Perales, J. C., & Shanks D. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: a review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 577-596. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196807
  37. Rehder, B. (2006). When similarity and causality compete in category-based property generalization. Memory and Cognition, 34, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193382
  38. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasky (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Theory and Research (pp. 64-99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  39. Rottman, B. M., & Hastie, R. (2016). Do people reason rationally about causally related events? Markov violations, weak inferences, and failures of explaining away. Cognitive Psychology, 87, 88-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.05.002
  40. Shanks, D. R. (2010). Learning : From association to cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 273-301. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100519
  41. Shanks, D. R., Lopez, F. J., Darby, R. J., & Dickinson, A. (1996). Distinguishing associative and probabilistic contrast theories of human contingency judgment. In D. R. Shanks, J. K. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 265-311). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  42. Sloman, S. (2005). Causal models. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  43. Soto, F. A., Gershman, S. J., Niv, Y. (2014). Explaining compound generalization in associative and causal Learning through rational principles of dimensional generalization. Psychological Review, 121, 526-558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037018
  44. Spelke, E. S. (1988). The origins of physical knowledge. In L. Weiskrantz (Ed.), Thought without language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  45. Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.2.222
  46. 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, 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00114