Trial order and retention interval in human predictive judgment

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 1368-1376

  Stout, Steven C ^a   Amundson, Jeffrey C ^b   Miller, Ralph R ^b,c  

^a VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LONG TERM MEMORY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; REINFORCEMENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; CONDITIONED REFLEX; FEMALE; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LEARNING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; EXTINCTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); JUDGMENT; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SET (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 33646824738     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193369     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. 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.
2. ALLAN, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
3. ATKINSON, R. C., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89-95). New York: Academic Press.
4. BOUTON, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 80-99.
5. BOUTON, M. E., NELSON, J. B., & ROSAS, J. M. (1999). Stimulus generalization, context change, and forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 171-186.
6. BURDICK, C. K., & JAMES, J. P. (1970). Spontaneous recovery of conditioned suppression of licking by rats. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 72, 467-470.
7. CHENG, P. W., & NOVICK, L. R. (1990). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
8. COLLINS, D. J., & SHANKS, D. R. (2002). Momentary and integrative response strategies in causal judgment. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1138-1147.
9. CROWDER, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. DE LA CASA, L. G., & LUBOW, R. E. (2000). Super-latent inhibition with delayed conditioned taste aversion testing. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28, 389-399.
11. DE LA CASA, L. G., & LUBOW, R. E. (2002). An empirical analysis of the super-latent inhibition effect. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 112-120.
12. DENNIS, M. J., & AHN, W.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory & Cognition, 29, 152-164.
13. 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.
14. ELLSON, D. G. (1939). Spontaneous recovery of the galvanic skin response as a function of the recovery interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 586-600.
15. ESCOBAR, M., ARCEDIANO, F., & MILLER, R. R. (2002). Latent inhibition and contextual associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 123-136.
16. GLUCK, M., & BOWER, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227-247.
17. HEARST, E. (1988). Fundamentals of learning and conditioning. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 2. Learning and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 3-109). New York: Wiley.
18. HINTZMAN, D. L. (1984). MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 16, 96-101.
19. JENKINS, H. M., & WARD, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between response and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 7, 1-17.
20. KERR, J. R., AVONS, S. E., & WARD, G. (1999). The effect of retention interval on serial position curves for item recognition of visual patterns and faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 1475-1494.
21. KNOEDLER, A. J., HELLWIG, K. A., & NEATH, I. (1999). The shift from recency to primacy with increasing delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 474-487.
22. KRAEMER, P. J., RANDALL, C. K., & CARBARY, T. J. (1991). Release from latent inhibition with delayed testing. Animal Learning & Behavior, 19, 139-145.
23. LOPEZ, F. J., SHANKS, D. R., ALMARAZ, J., & FERNANDEZ, P. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 672-694.
24. LUBOW, R. E., & DE LA CASA, L. G. (2002). Superlatent inhibition and spontaneous recovery: Differential effects of pre- and postconditioning CS-alone presentations after long delays in different contexts. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 376-386.
25. LUBOW, R. E., & MOORE, A. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditioned stimulus. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 52, 415-419.
26. MATUTE, H., VEGAS, S., & DE MAREZ, P. N. (2002). Flexible use of recent information in causal and predictive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 714-725.
27. MILLER, R. R., & ESCOBAR, M. (2002). Learning: Laws and models of basic conditioning. In C. R. Gallistel (Ed.), Stevens' Handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 3. Learning, motivation, and emotion (3rd ed., pp. 47-102). New York: Wiley.
28. NEATH, I. (1993). Distinctiveness and serial position effects in recognition. Memory & Cognition, 21, 689-698.
29. NEATH, I., & KNOEDLER, A. J. (1994). Distinctiveness and serial position effects in recognition and sentence processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 776-795.
30. PAVLOV, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (G.V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
31. POSTMAN, L., STARK, K., & FRASER, J. (1968). Temporal changes in interference. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 7, 672-694.
32. RESCORLA, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 66, 1-5.
33. 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.
34. ROSAS, J. M., VILA, N. J., LUGO, M., & LOPEZ, L. (2001). Combined effect of context change and retention interval on interference in causality judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 153-164.
35. SHANKS, D. R., & DICKINSON, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 229-261). San Diego: Academic Press.
36. SHANKS, D. R., HOLYOAK, K. J., & MEDIN, D. L. (EDS.) (1996). Causal learning: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34). New York: Academic Press.
37. SPEAR, N. E. (1973). Retrieval of memory in animals. Psychological Review, 80, 163-194.
38. TULVING, E., & THOMSON, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 359-380.
39. VAN HAMME, L. J., & WASSERMAN, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning & Motivation, 25, 127-151.
40. VILA, J., & ROSAS, J. M. (2001). Renewal and spontaneous recovery after extinction in a causal-learning task. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 27, 79-96.
41. WHEELER, D. S., & MILLER, R. R. (2005). Primacy effects induced by temporal or physical context shifts can be attenuated by a preshift test trial. Manuscript submitted for publication.
42. WHEELER, D. S., STOUT, S. C., & MILLER, R. R. (2004). Interaction of retention interval with CS-preexposure and extinction treatments: Symmetry with respect to primacy. Learning & Behavior, 32, 335-347.
43. WRIGHT, A. A., & ROEDIGER, H. L., III (2003). Interference processes in monkey auditory list memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 696-702.
44. WRIGHT, A. A., SANTIAGO, H. C., SANDS, S. F., KENDRICK, D. F., & COOK, R. G. (1985). Memory processing of serial lists by pigeons, monkeys, and people. Science, 229, 287-289.
45. YATES, J. F., & CURLEY, S. P. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement. Acta Psychologica 62, 293-302.
46. YOUNG, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 83-104.