Literature DB >> 17366309

Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgements than on causal judgements.

Jan De Houwer1, Stefaan Vandorpe, Tom Beckers.   

Abstract

Previous studies on causal learning showed that judgements about the causal effect of a cue on an outcome depend on the statistical contingency between the presence of the cue and the outcome. We demonstrate that statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgements (i.e., judgements about the usefulness of responses that allow one to prepare for the outcome). Our results suggest that preparation judgements primarily reflect information about the outcome in prior situations that are identical to the test situation. These findings also add to previous evidence showing that people can use contingency information in a flexible manner depending on the type of test question.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17366309     DOI: 10.1080/17470210601001084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  8 in total

1.  The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models.

Authors:  Jan De Houwer
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.986

2.  Contrasting cue-density effects in causal and prediction judgments.

Authors:  Miguel A Vadillo; Serban C Musca; Fernando Blanco; Helena Matute
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-02

3.  Contingency is used to prepare for outcomes: implications for a functional analysis of learning.

Authors:  Fernando Blanco; Helena Matute; Miguel A Vadillo
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-02

Review 4.  Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced.

Authors:  Helena Matute; Fernando Blanco; Ion Yarritu; Marcos Díaz-Lago; Miguel A Vadillo; Itxaso Barberia
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-02

5.  Selectivity in associative learning: a cognitive stage framework for blocking and cue competition phenomena.

Authors:  Yannick Boddez; Kim Haesen; Frank Baeyens; Tom Beckers
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-12

6.  Outcome probability modulates anticipatory behavior to signals that are equally reliable.

Authors:  Helena Matute; Sara Steegen; Miguel A Vadillo
Journal:  Adapt Behav       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.942

7.  Single- and Dual-Process Models of Biased Contingency Detection.

Authors:  Miguel A Vadillo; Fernando Blanco; Ion Yarritu; Helena Matute
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2016-01

8.  Causal illusions in the classroom: how the distribution of student outcomes can promote false instructional beliefs.

Authors:  Kit S Double; Julie Y L Chow; Evan J Livesey; Therese N Hopfenbeck
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2020-08-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.