Further evidence for the role of inferential reasoning in forward blocking

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1047-1056

  Vandorpe, Stefaan ^a   De Houwer, Jan ^a   Beckers, Tom ^b  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAUSAL MODELING; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; LEARNING TEST; NORMAL HUMAN; SELF REPORT; TASK PERFORMANCE; DECISION MAKING; PROBLEM SOLVING; REACTION TIME;

HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; REACTION TIME;

EID: 33244461038     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193212     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. AITKEN, M. R. F., LARKIN, M. J. W., & DICKINSON, A. (2001). Re-examination of the role of within-compound associations in the retrospective revaluation of causal judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 27-51.
2. BROWN, N. R. (1995). Estimation strategies and the judgment of event frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1539-1553.
3. HAPMAN, G. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 837-854.
4. HAPMAN, G. B., & ROBBINS, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment. Memory & Cognition, 18, 537-545.
5. HENG, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
6. HENG, P. W., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In H. L. Roitblat & J.-A. Meyer (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognitive science (pp. 271-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. HENG, P. W., & NOVICK, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 545-567.
8. E HOUWER, J. (2002). Forward blocking depends on retrospective inferences about the presence of the blocked cue during the elemental phase. Memory & Cognition, 30, 24-33.
9. E HOUWER, J., & BECKERS, T. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 289-310.
10. E HOUWER, J., & BECKERS, T. (2003). Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 345-357.
11. E HOUWER, J., BECKERS, T., & GLAUTIER, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 965-985.
12. E HOUWER, J., BECKERS, T., & VANDORPE, S. (2005). Evidence for the role of higher order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena. Learning & Behavior, 33, 239-249.
13. E HOUWER, J., VANDORPE, S., & BECKERS, T. (2004). On the role of controlled cognitive processes in human associative learning. In A. Wills (Ed.), New directions in human associative learning (pp. 41-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. ENNISTON, 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.
15. ICKINSON, A., & BURKE, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
16. ICKINSON, A., SHANKS, D., & EVENDEN, J. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29-50.
17. JOHNSON-LAIRD, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. OVIBOND, P. F. (2003). Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: Retrospective revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 97-106.
19. NISBETT, R. E., & WILSON, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
20. 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-Century-Crofts.
21. RIPS, L. J. (1983). Cognitive processes in propositional reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 38-71.
22. SHANKS, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1-21.
23. SHANKS, D. R., & LOPEZ, F. J. (1996). Causal order does not affect cue selection in human associative learning. Memory & Cognition, 24, 511-522.
24. SLOMAN, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
25. SMITH, E. R., & MILLER, F. D. (1978). Limits on perception of cognitive processes: A reply to Nisbett and Wilson. Psychological Review, 85, 355-362.
26. ANDORPE, S., & DE HOUWER, J. (in press-a). A comparison of forward blocking and reduced overshadowing in human causal learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
27. ANDORPE, S., & DE HOUWER, J. (in press-b). People want to see information that will help them make valid inferences in human contingency learning. Memory & Cognition.
28. WALDMANN, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 53-76.
29. WALDMANN, M. R., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222-236.
30. WALDMANN, M. R., & WALKER, J. M. (2005). Competence and performance in human causal learning. Learning & Behavior, 33, 211-229.