Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgements than on causal judgements

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 418-432

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

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 33947128089     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210601001084     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Allan, L. G., Siegel, S., & Hannah, S. (2007). The sad truth about depressive realism. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 482-495.
2. Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., & Mehta, R. (2000). Contingency learning and causal reasoning. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 255-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
4. 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.
5. De 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.
6. De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Baeyens, F. (2001). Associative learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 853-869.
7. Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
8. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3-32.
9. Hagmayer, Y., & Waldmann, M. R. (2007). Inferences about unobserved causes in human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 330-355.
10. Hebb, D. (1949). The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Lovibond, P. F. (2003). Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: Retrospective revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 97-106.
12. Matute, H., Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 182-196.
13. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
14. Miller, R. R., & Matzel, 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, pp. 51-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15. Mitchell, C. J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2002). Backward and forward blocking in human electrodermal conditioning: Blocking requires an assumption of outcome additivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 311-330.
16. Msetfi, R. M., Murphy, R. A., & Simpson, J. (2007). Depressive realism and the effect of intertrial interval on judgements of zero, positive, and negative contingencies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 461-481.
17. Pineño, O., & Miller, R. R. (2007). Comparing associative, statistical, and inferential reasoning accounts of human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 310-329.
18. 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.
19. Vadillo, M. A., & Matute, H. (2007). Predictions and causal estimations are not supported by the same associative structure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 433-447.
20. Vadillo, M. A., Miller, R. R., & Matute, H. (2005). Causal and predictive-value judgments, but not predictions, are based on cue-outcome contingency. Learning & Behavior, 33, 172-183.
21. 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.
22. 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.