Selective attribution and the judgment of causality

[1]  H. Gruber,et al.  Effects of experience on perception of causality. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  A. Michotte.  The perception of causality , 1963 .

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

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

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

[6]  L. Kamin,et al.  The truly random control procedure: Associative or nonassociative effects in rats. , 1971 .

[7]  V. Quinsey.  CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION WITH NO CS-US CONTINGENCY IN THE RAT* , 1971 .

[8]  E. Kremer.  Truly random and traditional control procedures in CER conditioning in the rat. , 1971, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[9]  R. Rescorla.  Informational Variables in Pavlovian Conditioning , 1972 .

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

[11]  W. N. Schoenfeld,et al.  Aversive schedules with independent probabilities of reinforcement for responding and not responding by rhesus monkeys: II. Without signal. , 1974 .

[12]  N. Mackintosh.  The psychology of animal learning , 1974 .

[13]  T. Testa.  Causal relationships and the acquisition of avoidance responses. , 1974 .

[14]  E. Kremer.  The truly random control procedure: conditioning to the static cues. , 1974, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[15]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Pavlovian appetitive contingencies and approach versus withdrawal to conditioned stimuli in pigeons. , 1974, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[16]  James O. Benedict,et al.  Systematic manipulation of individual events in a truly random control in rats. , 1975 .

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

[18]  J. Gibbon,et al.  Partial avoidance contingencies. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  E. Hearst,et al.  Positive and negative relations between a signal and food: Approach-withdrawal behavior to the signal. , 1977 .

[20]  J. Gibbon,et al.  Partial avoidance contingencies: Absolute omission and punishment probabilities. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

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

[24]  E. Hearst,et al.  Conditioned approach-withdrawal behavior and some signal-food relations in pigeons: Performance and positive vs. negative “associative strength“ , 1980 .

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

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

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

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

[29]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  Contingency in fear conditioning: A reexamination , 1981 .

[30]  T. Shultz.  Rules of Causal Attribution. , 1982 .

[31]  A. G. Baker,et al.  Manipulation of the Apparatus and Response Context may Reduce the US Pre-Exposure Interference Effect , 1982 .

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

[33]  P. Durlach.  Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

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

[35]  P. Durlach.  The Effect of Intertrial Conditioned Stimuli in Autoshaping , 1984 .

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

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

[38]  R. Rescorla.  Signaling intertrial shocks attenuates their negative effect on conditioned suppression , 1984 .

[39]  L. J. Hammond,et al.  Signaling unearned reinforcers removes the suppression produced by a zero correlation in an operant paradigm , 1984 .

[40]  Edward A. Wasserman,et al.  Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students , 1985 .

[41]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Contingency Effects with Maintained Instrumental Reinforcement , 1985 .

[42]  D R Shanks,et al.  Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials , 1985, Memory & cognition.

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