Spicer et al. (2020) reported a series of causal learning experiments in which participants appeared to learn most readily about cues when they were not certain of their causal status and proposed that their results were a consequence of participants' use of theory protection. In the present issue, Chan et al. (2021) present an alternative view, using a modification of Rescorla and Wagner's (1972) influential model of learning. Although the explanation offered by Chan et al. appears very different from that suggested by Spicer et al., there are conceptual commonalities. Here we briefly discuss the similarities and differences of the 2 approaches and agree with Chan et al.'s proposal that the best way to advance the debate will be to test situations in which the 2 theories make differing predictions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

异同：评论 Chan 等人。(2021)。

斯派塞等人。(2020) 报告了一系列因果学习实验，其中参与者在不确定自己的因果状态时似乎最容易学习线索，并提出他们的结果是参与者使用理论保护的结果。在本期中，Chan 等人。(2021) 提出了另一种观点，使用了 Rescorla 和 Wagner (1972) 有影响力的学习模型的修改。虽然 Chan 等人提供的解释。似乎与 Spicer 等人建议的非常不同，存在概念上的共性。在这里，我们简要讨论两种方法的异同，并同意 Chan 等人的建议，即推进辩论的最佳方法是测试两种理论做出不同预测的情况。