Contingency is used to prepare for outcomes: Implications for a functional analysis of learning

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 117-121

  Blanco, Fernando ^a   Matute, Helena ^a   Vadillo, Miguel A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DEUSTO   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; LEARNING; PROACTIVE INHIBITION;

ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; CUES; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; JUDGMENT; LEARNING; PROACTIVE INHIBITION;

EID: 74849108004     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.1.117     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Arcediano, F., Ortega, N., & Matute, H. (1996). A behavioral prepara- tion for the study of human Pavlovian conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 270-283. doi:10.1080/713932633
2. Costa, D. S. J. (2009). Maintenance of behaviour when reinforcement becomes delayed. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney.
3. De Houwer, J., Vandorpe, S., & Beckers, T. (2007). Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgments than on causal judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 418-432. doi:10.1080/17470210601001084
4. Dickinson, A. (1980). Contemporary animal learning theory. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Fiedler, K., Freytag, P., & Meiser, T. (2009). Pseudocontingencies: An integrative account of an intriguing cognitive illusion. Psychologi- cal Review, 116, 187-206. doi:10.1037/a0014480
6. Franssen, M., Clarysse, J., Beckers, T., van Vooren, P. R., & Baeyens, F. (in press). A free software package for a human online condi- tioned suppression preparation. Behavior Research Methods.
7. Gredebäck, G., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2000). Rational assessments of covariation and causality. In L. R. Gleitman & K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 190-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Hollis, K. L. (1997). Contemporary research on Pavlovian condition- ing: A "new" functional analysis. American Psychologist, 52, 956-965. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.9.956
9. Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 79, 1-17.
10. Matute, H., Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 182-196. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.182
11. Matute, H., Vegas, S., & De Marez, P. J. (2002). Flexible use of recent information in causal and predictive judgments. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 714-725. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.714
12. Mitchell, C. J., Lovibond, P. F., & Gan, C. Y. (2005). A dissociation between causal judgment and outcome recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 950-954.
13. Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and ab- sence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 66, 1-5. doi:10.1037/h0025984
14. Shanks, D. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contin- gency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 291-309. doi:10.1080/17470210601000581
15. 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. doi:10.1080/17470210601002520
16. Vadillo, M. A., Miller, R. R., & Matute, H. (2005). Causal and predictive-value judgments, but not predictions, are based on cueoutcome contingency. Learning & Behavior, 33, 172-183.