Temporal Contiguity and the Judgement of Causality by Human Subjects

Three experiments examined the role of the degree of temporal contiguity between an action and an outcome in human causality judgement. In all the experiments subjects were required to perform an action—pressing a key on a computer keyboard—and to judge the extent to which the action caused an outcome on the computer screen to occur. The action and outcome occurred on a free-operant schedule. In the first experiment a 2-sec delay between the action and outcome reduced causality judgements relative to a situation in which there was no delay. In the second experiment judgements in conditions with delays of 0, 4, 8, and 16 sec were compared with judgements in conditions in which the same pattern of outcomes occurred non-contingently with respect to the subjects’ responding. In both of these experiments the events were controlled by random ratio schedules, following the procedure of Wasserman, Chatlosh, and Neunaber (1983), in which each condition was divided into 1-sec intervals. In the third experiment judgements in conditions with delays of 0, 2, 4, or 8 sec were compared in a continuous procedure rather than one divided into 1-sec intervals. In all experiments the increasing delays led to progressively lower judgements of causality. The results are related to three accounts of the mechanism underlying human causality judgement and are also compared with results from analogous animal conditioning studies.

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

[2]  R. C. Oldfield THE PERCEPTION OF CAUSALITY , 1963 .

[3]  Robert S. Siegler,et al.  Effects of contiguity, regularity, and age on children's causal inferences. , 1974 .

[4]  The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  O. J. Sizemore,et al.  Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  P. Killeen Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability , 1978, Science.

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

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

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

[10]  L. J. Hammond The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  S. Lea,et al.  Contemporary Animal Learning Theory, Anthony Dickinson. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1981), xii, +177 pp. £12.50 hardback, £3.95 paperback , 1981 .

[12]  R. W. Richards,et al.  A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  A. Leslie The Perception of Causality in Infants , 1982, Perception.

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

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

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

[18]  J. L. Weil,et al.  The effects of delayed reinforcement on free-operant responding. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[21]  G. Bower The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 17) , 1985 .

[22]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Judging probable cause. , 1986 .

[23]  E. Wasserman,et al.  College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. , 1986, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Associative Accounts of Causality Judgment , 1988 .