Contingency judgements on the fly

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 60, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 753-761

  Crump, Matthew J C ^a   Hannah, Samuel D ^a   Allan, Lorraine G ^a   Hord, Lauren K ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STUDENT; TIME; VALIDATION STUDY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL DETECTION (PSYCHOLOGY); STUDENTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34249088302     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210701257685     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Allan, L. G. (1980), A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of tee Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
2. Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
3. Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learning and Motivation, 14, 381-405.
4. Allan, L. G., Siegel, S., & Tangen, J. M. (2005). A signal detection analysis of contingency data. Learning and Behaviour, 33, 250-263.
5. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgments of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students. Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441-485.
6. De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theory on human contingency learning research. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 289-310.
7. 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.
8. Gallistel, C. R. (2002). Frequency, contingency and the information processing theory of conditioning. In P. Sedlmeier &. T. Betsch (Eds.), Frequency processing and cognition. Oxford, UK: University Press.
9. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684-704.
10. Gluck, M. A., &. Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227-247.
11. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.
13. Kao, S. E., & 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, and Cognition, 19, 1363-1386.
14. Mandel, D., &. Lehman, D. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 269-285.
15. Perales, J., Catena, A., Gonzalez, J., &. Shanks, D. (2005). Dissociation between judgments and outcome-expectancy measures in covariation learning: A signal detection theory approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1105-1120.
16. 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. Prokosy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York Appleton-Century-Crofts.
17. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1-21.
18. Shanks, D. R. (1986). Selective attribution and the judgment of causality. Learning and Motivation, 17, 311-334.
19. Wasserman, E. A., Chatlosh, D. L., & Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perceptions of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures. Learning and Motivation, 14, 406-432.
20. Wasserman, E. A., & Shaklee, H. (1984). Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation. Memory & Cognition, 12, 170-286.