Human contingency judgments: rule based or associative?

The study of the mechanism that detects the contingency between events, in both humans and nonhuman animals, is a matter of considerable research activity. Two broad categories of explanations of the acquisition of contingency information have received extensive evaluation: rule-based models and associative models. This article assess the two categories of models for human contingency judgments. The data reveal systematic departures in contingency judgments from the predictions of rule-based models. Recent studies indicate that a contiguity model of Pavlovian conditioning is a useful heuristic for conceptualizing human contingency judgments.

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

[2]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation. , 1993 .

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

[4]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Sources of error in judging event covariations: Effects of memory demands. , 1982 .

[5]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[6]  M. Goddard,et al.  A critique of Alloy and Tabachnik's theoretical framework for understanding covariation assessment. , 1988 .

[7]  D. Shanks,et al.  Human instrumental learning: a critical review of data and theory. , 1993, British journal of psychology.

[8]  Frédéric Vallée-Tourangeau,et al.  Judgements of a 2 × 2 Contingency Table: Sequential processing and the Learning Curve , 1989 .

[9]  Attention, retrospective processing and cognitive representations. , 1989 .

[10]  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.

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

[12]  E. Wasserman Attribution of Causality to Common and Distinctive Elements of Compound Stimuli , 1990 .

[13]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition : Psychological and Biological Models , 1986 .

[14]  D R Shanks,et al.  Selectional processes in causality judgment , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[15]  H. Terrace,et al.  Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory , 1980 .

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

[17]  Edward A. Wasserman,et al.  The effects of unidirectional versus bidirectional rating procedures on college students' judgments of response-outcome contingency , 1986 .

[18]  P. Cheng,et al.  Causes versus enabling conditions , 1991, Cognition.

[19]  D. Shanks Selective attribution and the judgment of causality , 1986 .

[20]  Thomas Eissenberg,et al.  The associative basis of contingent color aftereffects. , 1992 .

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

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

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

[24]  O. Hobart Mowrer,et al.  Learning theory and the symbolic processes. , 1962 .

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

[26]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: asymmetries in cue competition. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[27]  D. Shanks On Similarities between Causal Judgments in Experienced and Described Situations , 1991 .

[28]  David R. Shanks,et al.  CATEGORIZATION BY A CONNECTIONIST NETWORK , 1991 .

[29]  P. Reed Effect of a Signalled Delay between an Action and Outcome on Human Judgement of Causality , 1992 .

[30]  H. Shaklee,et al.  A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events , 1980, Memory & cognition.

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

[32]  Shepard Siegel,et al.  Pairings in Learning and Perception: Pavlovian Conditioning and Contingent Aftereffects , 1992 .

[33]  Laura R. Novick,et al.  A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. , 1990 .

[34]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation , 1984, Memory & cognition.

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

[36]  Michael D. Zeiler,et al.  Predictability, correlation, and contiguity , 1981 .

[37]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

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

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

[41]  David R. Shanks,et al.  Associative versus contingency accounts of category learning: Reply to Melz, Cheng, Holyoak, and Waldmann (1993). , 1993 .

[42]  David R. Shanks,et al.  Acquisition functions in contingency judgment , 1987 .

[43]  D R Shanks,et al.  Connectionism and the Learning of Probabilistic Concepts , 1990, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[44]  A. R. Wagner,et al.  Evolution of a structured connectionist model of Pavlovian conditioning (AESOP). , 1989 .

[45]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Temporal Contiguity and the Judgement of Causality by Human Subjects , 1989 .

[46]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Information processing in animals : memory mechanisms , 1983 .

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

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

[49]  B. Campbell,et al.  Punishment and aversive behavior , 1969 .

[50]  K. Haberlandt,et al.  Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[51]  E. Wasserman Detecting Response-Outcome Relations: Toward an Understanding of the Causal Texture of the Environment , 1990 .

[52]  S. Klein,et al.  Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory , 1991 .

[53]  R. Rescorla Pavlovian conditioned inhibition , 1969 .

[54]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Judging interevent contingencies: Being right for the wrong reasons , 1986 .

[55]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  JUDGMENT OF CONTINGENCY BETWEEN RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES. , 1965, Psychological monographs.

[56]  F. Vallée-Tourangeau,et al.  Selective associations and causality judgments: Presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one. , 1993 .

[57]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The display of information and the judgment of contingency. , 1965, Canadian journal of psychology.

[58]  M. Bitterman,et al.  The role of contingency in classical conditioning. , 1990, Psychological review.

[59]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Human covariation judgment: Accuracy and strategy , 1983 .

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

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

[62]  G. Bower,et al.  From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. , 1988 .

[63]  The role of selective attribution in causality judgment , 1988 .

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

[65]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency. , 1993 .

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

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

[68]  L. Allan,et al.  McCollough Effects as Conditioned Responses: Reply to Skowbo , 1986 .

[69]  G. Chapman,et al.  Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[70]  O. Mowrer Learning theory and the symbolic processes. , 1962 .

[71]  R. Rescorla,et al.  Associations in Pavlovian conditioned inhibition , 1977 .

[72]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Recovery of an overshadowed association achieved by extinction of the overshadowing stimulus. , 1985 .

[73]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Prediction and judgment as indicators of sensitivity to covariation of continuous variables , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[74]  K. Holyoak,et al.  A Theory of Conditioning: Inductive Learning within Rule-Based Default Hierarchies. , 1989 .

[75]  Hal R. Arkes,et al.  Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. , 1983 .

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

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

[78]  P. W. Frey,et al.  Inhibition and learning , 1973 .

[79]  P. Reed,et al.  Context extinction following conditioning with delayed reward enhances subsequent instrumental responding. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[80]  L. Beach,et al.  Man as an Intuitive Statistician , 2022 .

[81]  Patricia W. Cheng,et al.  Cue Competition in Human Categorization: Contingency or the Rescorla-Wagner Learning Rule? Comment on Shanks (1991) , 1993 .

[82]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  Conditioning And Associative Learning , 1983 .

[83]  P. Cheng,et al.  Covariation in natural causal induction. , 1992 .

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

[85]  P. Reed Attenuation and enhancement of instrumental responding by signals for reinforcement on a variable interval schedule. , 1987 .

[86]  L. Allan,et al.  McCollough effects as conditioned responses: reply to Dodwell and Humphrey. , 1993, Psychological review.

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