Literature DB >> 8272465

Human contingency judgments: rule based or associative?

L G Allan1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8272465     DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Bull        ISSN: 0033-2909            Impact factor:   17.737


  41 in total

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

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

2.  Effects of wording and stimulus format on the use of contingency information in causal judgment.

Authors:  Peter A White
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-03

3.  Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning.

Authors:  Birgit Elsner; Bernhard Hommel
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2003-12-18

Review 4.  Assessing power PC.

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

5.  Human causality judgments and response rates on DRL and DRH schedules of reinforcement.

Authors:  Phil Reed
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.986

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

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

7.  Temporal contiguity and contingency judgments: a Pavlovian analogue.

Authors:  Lorraine G Allan; Jason M Tangen; Robert Wood; Taral Shah
Journal:  Integr Physiol Behav Sci       Date:  2003 Jul-Sep

8.  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

9.  Surprise and change: variations in the strength of present and absent cues in causal learning.

Authors:  Edward A Wasserman; Leyre Castro
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.986

10.  Structural awareness mitigates the effect of delay in human causal learning.

Authors:  W James Greville; Adam A Cassar; Mark K Johansen; Marc J Buehner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.