Literature DB >> 8648285

Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects.

H Matute1, F Arcediano, R R Miller.   

Abstract

The research reported in this article replicated the well-established phenomenon of competition between causes (C) as well as the more controversial presence and absence of competition between effects (E). The test question was identified as a crucial factor leading to each outcome. Competition between causes was obtained when the test question asked about the probability of E given C, p(E/C), implicitly compared with the probability of E given some alternative cause, p(E/C'). competition between effects was obtained when the test question asked about p(C/E) implicitly compared with p(C/E'). Under these conditions, effects competed for diagnostic value just as causes competed for predictive value. Additionally, some conditions in which neither causes nor effects competed were identified. These results suggest a bidirectional and noncompetitive learning process, the contents of which can be used in different ways (competitively or noncompetitively and forward or backward) as a function of test demands.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8648285     DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.22.1.182

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  23 in total

1.  Primacy in causal strength judgments: the effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships.

Authors:  M J Dennis; W K Ahn
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-01

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

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

3.  A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation.

Authors:  Martha Escobar; Oskar Pineño; Helena Matute
Journal:  Anim Learn Behav       Date:  2002-08

4.  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

5.  How temporal assumptions influence causal judgments.

Authors:  York Hagmayer; Michael R Waldmann
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-10

6.  Cue interaction and judgments of causality: contributions of causal and associative processes.

Authors:  Jason M Tangen; Lorraine G Allan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-01

7.  A comparative approach to cue competition with one and two strong predictors.

Authors:  Irina Baetu; A G Baker; Christine Darredeau; Robin A Murphy
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.986

8.  Contrasting predictive and causal values of predictors and of causes.

Authors:  Oskar Pineño; James C Denniston; Tom Beckers; Helena Matute; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.986

9.  Causal and predictive-value judgments, but not predictions, are based on cue-outcome contingency.

Authors:  Miguel A Vadillo; Ralph R Miller; Helena Matute
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.986

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.