Higher-order retrospective revaluation in human causal learning

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 137-151

  De Houwer, Jan ^a   Beckers, Tom ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; TIME;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0036526757     PISSN: 02724995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724990143000216     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Blaisdell, A.P., Bristol, A.S., Gunther, L.M., & Miller, R.R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: Support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 335-351.
2. Cheng, P.W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
3. Cheng, P.W. & Holyoak, K.J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In J.-A. Meyer & H. Roitblat (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognition (pp. 271-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 545-567.
5. De Houwer, J. (in press). Forward blocking depends on retrospective inferences about the presence of the blocked cue during the elemental phase. Memory and Cognition.
6. De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., & Glautier, S. (in press). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A.
7. Denniston, J.C., Savastano, H.I., & Miller, R.R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R.R. Mowrer & S.B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
9. Dwyer, D.M., Mackintosh, N.J., & Boakes, R.A. (1998). Simultaneous activation of the representations of absent cues results in the formation of an excitatory association between them. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 163-171.
10. Larkin, M.J.W., Aitken, M.R.F., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Restrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1331-1352.
11. Lipp, O.V., Siddle, D.A.T., & Dall, P.J. (1993). Effects of miscuing on Pavlovian conditioned responding and on probe reaction time. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 161-167.
12. Lopez, F.J., Shanks, D.R., Almaraz, J., & Fernandez, P. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgements: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 672-694.
13. Maldonado, A., Catena, A., Candido, A., & Garcia, I. (1999). The belief revision model: Asymmetrical effects of noncontingency on human covariation learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 27, 168-180.
14. Miller, R.R., & Matze, L.D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 22: Advances in research and theory (pp. 51-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15. Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A.H. Black & W.F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II. Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton.
16. Shanks, D.R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Memory and Cognition, 13, 158-167.
17. Shanks, D.R., Lopez, F.J., Darby, R.J., & Dickinson, A. (1996). Distinguishing associative and probabilistic contrast theories of human contingency judgment. In D.R. Shanks, K.J. Holyoak, & D.L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol 43: Causal learning (pp. 265-355). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Van Hamme, L.J., & Wasserman, E.A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127-151.
19. Wagner, A.R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N.E. Spear & R.R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Waldmann, M.R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 53-76.
21. Waldmann, M.R., & Holyoak, K.J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetnes in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 22-236.