Outcome maximality and additivity training also influence cue competition in causal learning when learning involves many cues and events

Recent evidence shows that outcome maximality (e.g., De Houwer, Beckers, & Glautier, 2002) and additivity training (e.g., Lovibond, Been, Mitchell, Bouton, & Frohard, 2003) have an influence on cue competition in human causal learning. This evidence supports the idea that cue competition is based on controlled reasoning processes rather than on automatic associative processes. Until now, however, all the evidence for controlled reasoning processes comes from studies with rather simple designs that involved only few cues and events. We conducted two experiments with a complex design involving 24 different cues. The results showed that outcome maximality and additivity training had an influence on cue competition but that this influence was more pronounced for forward cue competition than for retrospective cue competition.

[1]  Anthony Dickinson,et al.  Re-Examination of the Role of Within-Compound Associations in the Retrospective Revaluation of Causal Judgements , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[2]  Michael R. Waldmann,et al.  Competence and performance in causal learning , 2005, Learning & behavior.

[3]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[4]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Within Compound Associations Mediate the Retrospective Revaluation of Causality Judgements , 1996, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[5]  J. Greene,et al.  Knowing about People and Naming Them: Can Alzheimer's Disease Patients Do One without the Other? , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[6]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies. , 1998 .

[7]  D. Shanks.  Forward and Backward Blocking in Human Contingency Judgement , 1985 .

[8]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Backward Blocking and Recovery from Overshadowing in Human Causal Judgement: The Role of Within-compound Associations , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[9]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. , 1988 .

[10]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Cue Competition in Causality Judgments: The Role of Nonpresentation of Compound Stimulus Elements , 1994 .

[11]  Michael R. Waldmann,et al.  Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Judgement of Act-Outcome Contingency: The Role of Selective Attribution , 1984 .

[13]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  Nathaniel J. Blair,et al.  Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Human Reasoning: The Psychology Of Deduction , 1993 .

[16]  I. Mclaren,et al.  Learned Associability and Associative Change in Human Causal Learning , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[17]  G. Chapman,et al.  Cue interaction in human contingency judgment , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[18]  T. Beckers,et al.  Evidence for the role of higher order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena , 2005, Learning & behavior.

[19]  N. Mackintosh.  A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli with Reinforcement , 1975 .

[20]  Klaus G. Melchers,et al.  Within-compound associations in retrospective revaluation and in direct learning: a challenge for comparator theory. , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[21]  L. Kamin.  Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning , 1967 .

[22]  T. Beckers,et al.  Further evidence for the role of inferential reasoning in forward blocking , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[23]  T. Beckers,et al.  Outcome and Cue Properties Modulate Blocking , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[24]  T. Beckers,et al.  Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[25]  K. A. Clarke,et al.  Understanding predictive relations of necessity and sufficiency in formally equivalent "causal" and "logical" problems , 1980 .

[26]  P. Lovibond.  Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: retrospective revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  Anthony Dickinson,et al.  The 28th Bartlett Memorial Lecture Causal Learning: An Associative Analysis , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[28]  P. Cheng,et al.  Why Causation Need not Follow From Statistical Association: Boundary Conditions for the Evaluation of Generative and Preventive Causal Powers , 1999 .

[29]  A comparison of cue competition in a simple and a complex design. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[30]  Christopher J. Mitchell,et al.  Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[31]  J. Kruschke.  Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning , 2001 .