Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 213-218

  Laux, Jeffrey P ^a   Goedert, Kelly M ^b   Markman, Arthur B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SETON HALL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION;

COGNITION; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; JUDGMENT; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 77954662195     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.213     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
2. Allan, L. G., Hannah, S. D., Crump, M. J. C., & Siegel, S. (2008). The psychophysics of contingency assessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 226-243.
3. Allan, L. G., Siegel, S., & Tangen, J. M. (2005). A signal detection analysis of contingency data. Learning & Behavior, 33, 250-263.
4. Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., & Pan, M. (1993). Selective associations and causality judgments: Pres ence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 414-432.
5. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
6. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
7. Crump, M. J. C., Hannah, S. D., Allan, L. G., & Hord, L. K. (2007). Contingency judgments on the fly. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 753-761.
8. Goedert, K. M., Harsch, J., & Spellman, B. A. (2005). Discounting and conditionalization: Dissociable cognitive processes in human causal inference. Psychological Science, 16, 590-595.
9. Goedert, K. M., & Spellman, B. A. (2005). Nonnormative discounting: There is more to cue interaction effects than controlling for alternative causes. Learning & Behavior, 33, 197-210.
10. Healy, A. F., & Kubovy, M. (1978). The effects of payoffs and prior probabilities on indices of performance and cutoff location in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 6, 544-553.
11. Macmillan, N. A. & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. McNicol, D., & Ryder, L. A. (1971). Sensitivity and response bias effects in the learning of familiar and unfamiliar associations by rote or with a mnemonic. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 81-89.
13. Perales, J. C., Catena, A., Shanks, D. R., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2005). Dissociation between judgments and outcome-expectancy measures in covariation learning: A signal detection theory approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1105-1120.
14. Price, P. C., & Yates, J. F. (1995). Associative and rule-based accounts of cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1639-1655.
15. Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339-1362.
16. 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-Century-Crofts.
17. Schustack, M. W., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 101-120.
18. Siegel, S., Allan, L. G., Hannah, S. D., & Crump, M. J. C. (2009). Applying signal detection theory to contingency assessment. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 4, 116-134.
19. Spellman, B. A. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: Contingency judgments are made while controlling for alternative potential causes. Psychological Science, 7, 337-342.
20. Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2007). Sometimes competing retrieval (SOCR): A formalization of the comparator hypothesis. Psychological Review, 114, 759-783.
21. Tangen, J. M., & Allan, L. G. (2004). Cue interaction and judgments of causality: Contributions of causal and associative processes. Memory & Cognition, 32, 107-124.