The role of contingency and contiguity in young and older adults' causal learning

Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences

Volumn 64, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 315-323

  Mutter, Sharon A ^a   Decaro, Marci S ^a,b   Plumlee, Leslie F ^a  

^a WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Associative processes; Causal learning; Cue utilization; Temporal context

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTINGENCY TABLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; LEARNING TEST; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 65349120862     PISSN: 10795014     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbp004     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Aitken, M. R. F., & Dickinson, A. (2005). Simulations of a modified SOP model applied to retrospective revaluation of human causal learning. Learning and Behavior, 33, 147-159.
2. Buehner, M. J. (2005). Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference. Learning and Behavior, 33, 230-238.
3. Buehner, M. J., & McGregor, S. (2005). Probability and contiguity tradeoffs in human causal induction. In L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 360-365). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Chatlosh, D. L., Neunaber, D. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (1985). Response- outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive aversive outcomes and college students. Learning and Motivation, 16, 1-34.
5. Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
6. Dickinson, A., Shanks, D. R., & Evenden, J. L. (1984). Judgment of act- outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29 - 50.
7. Driscoll, I., Hamilton, D. A., Petropoulos, H., Yeo, R. A., Brooks, W. M., Baumgartner, R. N., & Sutherland, R. J. ( 2003 ). The aging hippocampus: Cognitive, biochemical, and structural findings. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 1344-1351.
8. Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 297 - 304.
9. Howard, M. W., Fotedar, M. S., Datey, A. V., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2005). The temporal context model in spatial navigation and relational learning: Toward a common explanation of medial temporal lobe function across domains. Psychological Review, 112, 75 - 116.
10. Hume, D. ( 1969 ). A treatise of human nature. New York : Penguin. (Origi-nal work published 1739).
11. Kahana, M. J., Howard, M. W., Zaromb, F., & Wingfield, A. (2002). Age dissociates recency and lag recency effects in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 530 - 540.
12. Levine, B., Stuss, D. T., & Milberg, W. P. (1997). Effects of aging on conditional associative learning: Process analyses and comparison with focal frontal lesions. Neuropsychology, 11, 367-381.
13. Luu, T. T., Pirogovsky, E., & Gilbert, P. E. ( 2008 ). Age-related changes in contextual associative learning. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 89, 81-85.
14. Miller, R. R., & Barnet, R. C. ( 1993 ). The role of time in elementary associations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 106 - 111.
15. Mitchell, K. J., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Mather, M., & D'Esposito, M. (2000). Aging and reflective processes of working memory: Binding and test load deficits. Psychology and Aging, 15, 527-541.
16. Mutter, S. A., Haggbloom, S. J., Plumlee, L. F., & Schirmer, A. R. ( 2006 ). Aging, working memory, and discrimination learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1556 - 1566.
17. Mutter, S. A., Strain, L. M., & Plumlee, L. F. ( 2007 ). The role of age and prior beliefs in contingency judgment. Memory and Cognition, 35, 875 - 884.
18. Mutter, S. A., & Williams, T. ( 2004 ). Aging and the detection of contingency in causal learning. Psychology and Aging, 19, 13-26.
19. Parr, W. V., & Mercier, P. ( 1998 ). Adult age differences in on-line contingency judgments. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 147 - 158.
20. Phillips, R. G., & LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Differential contribution of amygdala and hippocampus to cued and contextual fear conditioning. Behavioral Neuroscience, 106, 274-285.
21. Provyn, J. P., Sliwinski, M. J., & Howard, M. W. (2007). Effects of age on contextually mediated associations in paired associate learning. Psy-chology and Aging, 22, 846 - 857.
22. Raven, J. C., Raven, J., & Court, J. H. (1989). Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale (U.S. edition, 1985 revision). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
23. Raz, N. (2000). Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance: Integration of structural and functional findings. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook ofaging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Reed, P. (1999). Role of a stimulus filling an action-outcome delay in human judgments of causal effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 92-102.
25. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonrein- forcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
26. Salthouse, T. A. (1994). The nature of the influence of speed on adult age differences in cognition. Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 240-259.
27. Salthouse, T. A. ( 1996 ). The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403-128.
28. Salthouse, T. A., & Babcock, R. L. (1991). Decomposing adults age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 763-776.
29. Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Time as content in Pavlovian conditioning. Behavioural Processes, 44, 147-162.
30. Shanks, D. R. (1987). Acquisition functions in contingency judgment. Learning and Motivation, 18, 147-166.
31. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory & Cognition, 19, 353-360.
32. Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Jour-nal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139 - 159.
33. Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2006). Effective cue utilization reduces memory errors in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 21, 379 - 389.
34. Van Hamme, L. J., & Wasserman, E. A. ( 1994 ). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127 - 151.
35. Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in ani-mal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5 - 47 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
36. Wasserman, E. A., Chatlosh, D. L., & Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures. Learning and Motivation, 14, 406 - 432.
37. 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.
38. Wechsler, D. ( 1997 ). Wechsler adult intelligence scale ( 3rd ed. ). San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corp. Young, M. E., Rogers, E. T., & Beckmann, J. S. ( 2005 ). Causal impressions: Predicting when, not just whether. Memory and Cognition, 33, 320 - 331.