Literature DB >> 2233266

Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.

G B Chapman1, S J Robbins.   

Abstract

Most studies of human contingency judgment have been based on the assumption that frequency information about one predictor is assessed in isolation of information about other predictors. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the judged predictive strength of one cue is influenced by the predictive strengths of other copresent cues. Two experiments demonstrate that stimuli with the same outcome contingencies may nonetheless have different predictive strengths as the result of cue interaction. The first experiment, in which a within-subject design was used, provides a demonstration of blocking. A stimulus presented in compound with a strong predictor was rated as less predictive than another stimulus that was presented in compound with a nonpredictive cue. In the second experiment, cue interactions in conditioned inhibition were examined. A stimulus gained negative predictive strength as the result of compound presentations with a positive predictor when the outcome was not presented. This negative predictor was compared with an otherwise analogous stimulus that was not presented in compound with a positive predictor. These results support the use of animal-conditioning models as accounts of human contingency learning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2233266     DOI: 10.3758/bf03198486

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  7 in total

1.  The display of information and the judgment of contingency.

Authors:  W C Ward; H M Jenkins
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1965-09

2.  Selectional processes in causality judgment.

Authors:  D R Shanks
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1989-01

3.  Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials.

Authors:  D R Shanks
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1985-03

4.  A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.

Authors:  J M Pearce; G Hall
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events.

Authors:  H Shaklee; D Tucker
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1980-09

6.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: the joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information.

Authors:  L B Alloy; N Tabachnik
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model.

Authors:  M A Gluck; G H Bower
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1988-09
  7 in total
  46 in total

1.  Re-engineering the process of surgical informed consent.

Authors:  M M Dierks; D Z Sands; C Safran
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  1999

2.  Asymptotic judgment of cause in a relative validity paradigm.

Authors:  A G Baker; F Vallée-Tourangeau; R A Murphy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-04

3.  Causal judgment from contingency information: relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgment.

Authors:  P A White
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-04

4.  Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: evidence from an overshadowing paradigm.

Authors:  M R Waldmann
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-09

5.  How two causes are different from one: the use of (un)conditional information in Simpson's paradox.

Authors:  B A Spellman; C M Price; J M Logan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-03

Review 6.  Assessing power PC.

Authors:  Lorraine G Allan
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Effect of local context of responding on human judgment of causality.

Authors:  P Reed
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1992-09

8.  Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude.

Authors:  Peter E Lovibond; Sara-Lee Been; Chris J Mitchell; Mark E Bouton; Russell Frohardt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-01

9.  Causal judgment from contingency information: a systematic test of the pCI rule.

Authors:  Peter A White
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-04

10.  A test of Rescorla and Wagner's (1972) prediction of nonlinear effects in contingency learning.

Authors:  Joaquín Morís; Susana Carnero; Ignacio Loy
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.