Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials

Recent evidence suggests that people are sensitive to the degree of contingency between their actions and ensuing outcomes, but little is known about the way in which such contingency judgments develop as more and more information about the contingency is provided. Three experiments examined this issue in the context of a video game. In Experiment 1, it was found that contingency judgments follow growth functions: When the contingency was positive, judgments increased toward a positive asymptote, and when the contingency was negative, judgments decreased toward a negative asymptote. When the contingency was zero, judgments themselves remained close to zero but were biased by the overall frequency with which the outcome occurred. In Experiment 2, it was shown that the growth function was not the result of the anchoring of early judgments at the zero point. The bias in judgments when the contingency is zero was investigated in Experiment 3. The results are discussed in terms of rule-based analyses and contemporary theories of conditioning.

[1]  J. Ayres,et al.  Systematic manipulation of CS-US pairings in negative CS-US correlation procedures in rats , 1980 .

[2]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The Judgment of Contingency and the Nature of the Response Alternatives , 1980 .

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

[4]  L. Abramson,et al.  Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? , 1979 .

[5]  Rupert G. Miller Simultaneous Statistical Inference , 1966 .

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

[7]  R. Rescorla Conditioned inhibition of fear resulting from negative CS-US contingencies. , 1969, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[8]  A. Dickinson Contemporary Animal Learning Theory , 1981 .

[9]  R. Rescorla Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. , 1968, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[10]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[11]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence , 1983 .

[12]  J. Pearce,et al.  A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. , 1980 .

[13]  L. Abramson,et al.  Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  L. Alloy,et al.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. , 1984 .

[15]  Edward A. Wasserman,et al.  Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures☆ , 1983 .

[16]  L. Allan A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks , 1980 .