Contiguity and the outcome density bias in action-outcome contingency judgements

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

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 177-192

  Vallée Tourangeau, Frédéric ^a   Murphy, Robin A ^b   Baker, A G ^c  

^a KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; LEARNING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

EID: 17644408762     PISSN: 02724995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724990444000104     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurements of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
2. Allan, L. G., Tangen, J. M., Wood, R., & Shah, T. (2003). Temporal contiguity and contingency judgments: A Pavlovian analogue. Integrative Physiological and Behavior Science, 38, 214-229.
3. Baker, A. G., Berbrier, M. W., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1989). Judgments of a 2 × 2 contingency table: Sequential processing and the learning curve. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 65-97.
4. Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1996). Associative and normative models of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding cause. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 1-45). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5. Buehner, M. J., & May, J. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 865-890.
6. Buehner, M. J., & May, J. (2004). Abolishing the effect of reinforcement delay on human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 179-191.
7. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
8. Dickinson, A., & Charnock, D. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 397-416.
9. Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., & Evenden, J. (1984). Judgment of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29-50.
10. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
11. Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 297-304.
12. Hume, D. (1960). A treatise of human nature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739)
13. Murphy, R. A., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Msetfi, R., & Baker, A. G. (2005). Signal-outcome contingency, contiguity and the depressive realism effect. In A. Wills (Ed.), New directions in human associative learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
14. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
16. Shanks, D. R. (1987). Acquisition functions in causality judgment. Learning and Motivation, 18, 147-166.
17. Shanks, D. R. (1989). Selectional processes in causality judgment. Memory & Cognition, 17, 27-34.
18. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgments. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 21, pp. 229-261). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory & Cognition, 19, 353-360.
20. Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139-159.
21. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Hollingsworth, L., & Murphy, R. A. (1998a). "Attentional bias" in correlation judgments: Smedslund (1963) revisited. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 221-233.
22. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., Drew, S., & Baker, A. G. (1998b). Judging the importance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the Power PC Theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 65-84.
23. Wasserman, E. A, Chatlosh, D. L., & Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures. Learning & Motivation, 14, 406-432.
24. Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. L., & Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 174-188.