Interference between cues of the same outcome depends on the causal interpretation of the events

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 369-386

  Cobos, Pedro L ^a   López, Francisco J ^a   Luque, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÁLAGA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LEARNING; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CONCEPT FORMATION; CUES; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY;

EID: 33947188026     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210601000961     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abra, J. C. (1967). Time changes in the strength of forward and backward associations. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 6, 640-645.
2. Beckers, T., Miller, R. R., De Houwer, J., & Urushihara, K. (2006). Reasoning rats: Forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 92-102.
3. Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 80-99.
4. Castro, L., Ortega, N., & Matute, H. (2002). Proactive interference in human predictive learning. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 15, 55-68.
5. 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: The MIT Press.
6. Cheng, P. W., &. Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 545-567.
7. Cheung, C. G., & Goulet, L. R. (1968). Retroactive inhibition of R-S associations in the A-B, B-C, C-B paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 327-328.
8. Cobos, P. L., López, F. J., Caño, A., Almaraz, J., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). Mechanisms of predictive and diagnostic causal induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 331-346.
9. Escobar, M., Arcediano, F., &. Miller, R. R. (2001). Conditions favoring retroactive interference between antecedent events (cue competition) and between subsequent events (outcome competition). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 691-697.
10. Escobar, M., Matute, H., & Miller, R. R. (2001). Cues trained apart compete for behavioral control in rats: Convergence with the associative interference literature. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 97-115.
11. Escobar, M., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Timing in retroactive interference. Learning & Behavior, 31, 257-272.
12. Escobar, M., Pineño, O., & Matute, H. (2002). A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 228-238.
13. García-Gutiérrez, A., & Rosas, J. M. (2003a). Context change as the mechanism of reinstatement in causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29, 292-310.
14. García-Gutiérrez, A., & Rosas, J. M. (2003b). Empirical and theoretical implications of additivity between reinstatement and renewal after interference in causal learning. Behavioural Processes, 63, 21-31.
15. Glymour, C. (2001). The mind's arrows: Bayes nets and graphical causal models in psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. 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. Psychology Review, 111, 1-30.
17. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 354-384.
18. Hagmayer, Y & Waldmann, M. R. (2007). Inferences about unobserved causes in human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 330-355.
19. Keppel, G., Bonge, D., Strand, B. Z., & Parker, J. (1971). Direct and indirect interference in the recall of paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 414-422.
20. Le Pelley, M. E., Oakeshott, S. M., & McLaren, I. P. L. (2005). Blocking and unblocking in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 56-70.
21. Lipp, O. V., &. Dal Santo, L. A. (2002). Cue competition between elementary trained stimuli: US miscuing, interference, and US omission. Learning & Motivation, 33, 327-346.
22. López, F. J., Cobos, P. L., & Caño, A. (2005). Associative and causal reasoning accounts of causal induction: Symmetries and asymmetries in predictive and diagnostic inferences. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1388-1398.
23. Matute, H., & Pineño, O. (1998). Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 3-14.
24. Matute, H., Vegas, S., &. De Marez, P. J. (2002). Flexible use of recent information in causal and predictive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 714-725.
25. Miller, R. R., & Escobar, M. (2002). Associative interference between cues and between outcomes presented together and presented apart: An integration. Behavioural Processes, 57, 163-185.
26. Ortega, O., & Matute, H. (2000). Interference between elementally trained stimuli can take place in one trial. Learning & Motivation 31, 323-344.
27. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Clarendon Press.
28. Pineño, O., &. Matute, H. (2000). Interference in human predictive learning when associations share a common element. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 13, 16-33.
29. Pineño, O., Ortega, N., & Matute, H. (2000). The relative activation of the associations modulates interference between elementally trained cues. Learning and Motivation, 31, 128-152.
30. Price, P. C., &. Yates, J. F. (1995). Associative and rule-based accounts of cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1639-1655.
31. Rosas, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (1998). Context change and retention interval have additive, rather than interactive, effects after taste aversion extinction. Psychonotnic Bulletin & Review, 5, 79-83.
32. Rosas, J. M., Vila, N.J., Lugo, M., & López, L. (2001). Combined effect of context change and retention interval on interference in causality judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Proceses, 27, 153-164.
33. Schwartz, M. (1968). Effect of stimulus class on transfer and RI in the A-B, A-C paradigm. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 7, 189-195.
34. Sloman, S., & Lagnado, D. (2004). Causal invariance in reasoning and learning. In Brian H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 287-325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
35. Tangen, J. M., & Allan, L. G. (2004). Cue-interaction and judgments of causality; contributions of causal and associative processes. Memory of Cognition, 32, 107-124.
36. Vadillo, M. A., Vegas, S., & Matute, H. (2004). Frequency of judgment as a context-like determinant of predictive judgments. Memory & Cogition, 32, 1065-1075.
37. Van Hamme, L. J., Kao, S.-R, & Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Judging interevent relations: from cause to effect and from effect to cause. Memory & Cognition, 21, 802-808.
38. Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn ing, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 53-76.
39. Waldmann, M. R. (2001). Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: evidence from an overshadowing paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 600-608.
40. 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.
41. Waldmann, M. R., & Walker, J. M. (2005). Competence and performance in causal learning. Learning & Behavior, 33, 211-229.