Nonnormative discounting: There is more to cue interaction effects than controlling for alternative causes

Learning and Behavior

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 197-210

  Goedert, Kelly M ^a   Spellman, Barbara A ^b  

^a PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LEARNING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NORMAL HUMAN; ADULT; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTIVATION;

EID: 23844533824     PISSN: 15434494     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/bf03196063     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. AHN, W., KALISH, C. W., MEDIN, D. L., & GELMAN, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299-352.
2. ALLAN, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
3. ALLOY, L. B., & TABACHNIK, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112-149.
4. BAKER, A. G., BERBRIER, M. W., & VALLÉE-TOURANGEAU, F. (1989). Judgements of a 2 × 2 contingency table: Sequential processing and the learning curve. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 65-97.
5. BAKER, A. G., MERCIER, P., VALLÉE-TOURANGEAU, F., FRANK, R., & PAN, M. (1993). Selective associations and causality judgments: Presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 414-432.
6. BUSEMEYER, J. R., MYUNG, J., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (1993). Cue competition effects: Empirical tests of adaptive network learning models. Psychological Science, 4, 190-195.
7. CECH, C. G., & SHOBEN, E. J. (1985). Context effects in symbolic magnitude comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 299-315.
8. CHAPMAN, G. B., & ROBBINS, S. I. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment. Memory & Cognition, 18, 537-545.
9. CHENG, P. W. (1993). Separating causal laws from causal facts: Pressing the limits of statistical relevance. In D. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 30 (pp. 215-264). San Diego: Academic Press.
10. CHENG, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
11. CHENG, P. W., & NOVICK, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 545-567.
12. CHENG, P. W., PARK, J., YARLAS, A. S., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1996). A causal-power theory of focal sets. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 313-355). San Diego: Academic Press.
13. DE HOUWER, J., & BECKERS, T. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 289-310.
14. DE HOUWER, J., & BECKERS, T. (2003). Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 345-357.
15. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. FUGELSANG, J. A., & THOMPSON, V. A. (2001). Belief-based and covariation-based cues affect causal discounting. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 70-76.
17. HANSEN, R. D., & HALL, C. A. (1985). Discounting and augmenting facilitative and inhibitory forces: The winner takes almost all. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 1482-1493.
18. KAO, S., & WASSERMAN, E. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1363-1386.
19. KELLEY, H. H. (1972a). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
20. KELLEY, H. H. (1972b). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151-174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
21. KEPPEL, G. (1991). Design and analysis (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. MACRAE, C. N., MILNE, A. B., & BODENHAUSEN, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 37-47.
23. MANDEL, D. R., & LEHMAN, D. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 269-285.
24. MORRIS, M. W., & LARRICK, R. P. (1995). When one cause casts doubt on another: A normative analysis of discounting in causal attribution. Psychological Review, 102, 331-355.
25. PRICE, P. C., & YATES, J. F. (1993). Judgmental overshadowing: Further evidence of cue interaction in contingency judgment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 561-572.
26. PRICE, P. C., & YATES, J. F. (1995). Associative and rule-based accounts of cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1639-1655.
27. 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 research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
28. SCHALLER, M. (1992). In-group favoritism and statistical reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and maintenance of group stereotypes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 61-74.
29. SHANKS, D. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgments across trials. Memory & Cognition, 13, 158-167.
30. SHANKS, D. R. (1991). On similarities between causal judgments in experienced and described situations. Psychological Science, 2, 341-350.
31. SHANKS, D. R. (1995). Is human learning rational? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 257-279.
32. SHANKS, D. R., HOLYOAK, K. J., & MEDIN, D. L. (Eds.) (1996). The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 34: Causal learning. San Diego: Academic Press.
33. SPELLMAN, B. A. (1996a). Acting as intuitive scientists: Contingency judgments are made while controlling for alternative potential causes. Psychological Science, 7, 337-342.
34. SPELLMAN, B. A. (1996b). Conditionalizing causality. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 167-206). San Diego: Academic Press.
35. SPELLMAN, B. A., PRICE, C. M., & LOGAN, J. (2001). How two causes are different from one: The use of (un)conditional information in Simpson's paradox. Memory & Cognition, 29, 193-208.
36. TANGEN, J. M., & ALLAN, L. G. (2003). The relative effect of cue interaction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 279-300.
37. VALLÉE-TOURANGEAU, F., BAKER, A. G., & MERCIER, P. (1994). Discounting in causality and covariation judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47B, 151-171.
38. WALDMANN, M. R. (1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 47-88). San Diego: Academic Press.
39. WALDMANN, M. R., & HAGMAYER, Y. (1995). When a cause simultaneously produces and prevents an effect. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 425-430). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. WALDMANN, M. R., & HAGMAYER, Y. (2001). Estimating causal strength: The role of structural knowledge and processing effort. Cognition, 82, 27-58.
41. WALDMANN, M. R., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1990). Can causal induction be reduced to associative learning? In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 190-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. WALDMANN, M. R., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222-236.