López Francisco J, Cobos Pedro L, Caño Antonio
Departamento de Psicología Básica, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain.
Mem Cognit. 2005 Dec;33(8):1388-98. doi: 10.3758/bf03193371.
Associative and causal reasoning accounts are probably the two most influential types of accounts of causal reasoning processes. Only causal reasoning accounts predict certain asymmetries between predictive (i.e., reasoning from causes to effects) and diagnostic (i.e., reasoning from effects to causes) inferences regarding cue-interaction phenomena (e.g., the overshadowing effect). In the experiments reported here, we attempted to delimit the conditions under which these asymmetries occur. The results show that unless participants perceived the relevance of causal information to solving the task, predictive and diagnostic inferences were symmetrical. Specifically, Experiments 1A and 1B showed that implicitly stressing the relevance of causal information by having participants review the instructions favored the presence of asymmetries between predictive and diagnostic situations. In addition, Experiment 2 showed that explicitly stressing the relevance of causal information by stating the importance of the causal role of events after the instructions were given also favored the asymmetry.
联想推理和因果推理理论可能是因果推理过程中最具影响力的两种理论类型。只有因果推理理论预测了关于线索交互现象（如遮蔽效应）的预测性（即从原因到结果的推理）和诊断性（即从结果到原因的推理）推理之间的某些不对称性。在本文所报告的实验中，我们试图界定这些不对称性出现的条件。结果表明，除非参与者察觉到因果信息与解决任务的相关性，否则预测性和诊断性推理是对称的。具体而言，实验1A和1B表明，让参与者回顾指导语从而隐性地强调因果信息的相关性，有利于预测性和诊断性情境之间出现不对称性。此外，实验2表明，在给出指导语后说明事件因果作用的重要性从而显性地强调因果信息的相关性，也有利于这种不对称性的出现。
