Pineño Oskar, Miller Ralph R
University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Mar;60(3):310-29. doi: 10.1080/17470210601000680.
For more than two decades, researchers have contrasted the relative merits of associative and statistical theories as accounts of human contingency learning. This debate, still far from resolution, has led to further refinement of models within each family of theories. More recently, a third theoretical view has joined the debate: the inferential reasoning account. The explanations of these three accounts differ critically in many aspects, such as level of analysis and their emphasis on different steps within the information-processing sequence. Also, each account has important advantages (as well as critical flaws) and emphasizes experimental evidence that poses problems to the others. Some hybrid models of human contingency learning have attempted to reconcile certain features of these accounts, thereby benefiting from some of the unique advantages of different families of accounts. A comparison of these families of accounts will help us appreciate the challenges that research on human contingency learning will face over the coming years.
二十多年来，研究人员一直在对比联想理论和统计理论作为人类偶然性学习解释的相对优点。这场仍远未解决的辩论促使每个理论家族内部的模型得到进一步完善。最近，第三种理论观点加入了这场辩论：推理推理理论。这三种理论的解释在许多方面存在重大差异，例如分析层面以及它们对信息处理序列中不同步骤的强调。此外，每种理论都有重要的优点（以及关键缺陷），并强调了给其他理论带来问题的实验证据。一些人类偶然性学习的混合模型试图调和这些理论的某些特征，从而受益于不同理论家族的一些独特优势。对这些理论家族进行比较将有助于我们认识到未来几年人类偶然性学习研究将面临的挑战。
