The criterion-calibration model of cue interaction in contingency judgments

Learning and Behavior

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 171-190

  Hannah, Samuel D ^a   Allan, Lorraine G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Contingency; Criterion setting; Criterion shift; Cue interaction; Signal detection theory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CUES; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 80051759252     PISSN: 15434494     EISSN: 15434508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13420-011-0015-9     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allan, L. G., Hannah, S. D., Siegel, S., & Crump, M. J. C. (2008). The psychophysics of contingency assessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 226-243.
2. Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Valle-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., & Pan, M. (1993). Selective associations and causality judgments: Presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 414-432.
3. Benjamin, A. S., Diaz, M., & Wee, S. (2009). Signal detection with criterion noise: Applications to recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116, 84-115.
4. Blaisdell, A. P., Bristol, A. S., Gunther, L. M., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: Support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 335-351. (Pubitemid 128741627)
5. Brown, S., & Steyvers, M. (2005). The dynamics of experimentally induced criterion shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 587-599. (Pubitemid 41168509)
6. Brown, S., Steyvers, M., & Hemmer, P. (2007). Modelling experimentally induced strategy shifts. Psychological Science, 31, 587-599.
7. Buehner, M. J., & May, J. (2004). Abolishing the effect of reinforcement delay on human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 179-191. (Pubitemid 38483863)
8. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods Research, 33, 261-304. (Pubitemid 39519124)
9. Crump, M. J. C., Hannah, S. D., Allan, L. G., & Hord, L. K. (2007). Contingency judgements on the fly. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 753-781.
10. Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., Blaisdell, A. P., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Cue competition as a retrieval deficit. Learning & Motivation, 34, 1-31. (Pubitemid 36269893)
11. Gallistel, C. R., & Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289-344.
12. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
13. Hannah, S. D., Crump, M. J. C., Allan, L. G., & Siegel, S. (2009). Cue interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trials procedure. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 103-112.
14. Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L. (1998). A decrement-to-familiarity interpretation of the revelation effect from forced-choice tests of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1105-1120. (Pubitemid 128548264)
15. Hockley, W. E., & Niewiadomski, M. W. (2007). Strength-based mirror effects in item and associative recognition: Evidence for within-list criterion changes. Memory & Cognition, 35, 679-688. (Pubitemid 47257807)
16. Killeen, P. R., Fetterman, J. G., & Bizo, L. A. (1997). Time's causes. In C. M. Bradshaw & E. Szabadi (Eds.), Time and behaviour: Psychological and neurobehavioural analyses (pp. 79-131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
17. Laux, J. P., Goedert, K. M., & Markman, A. B. (2010). Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 213-218.
18. Mewhort, D. J. K., Kelly, M., & Johns, B. T. (2009). Randomization and the unequal-N/unequal-variance problem. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 664-667.
19. Miller, R. R., & Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Advances in research and theory, Vol. 22, pp. 51-92). San Diego: Academic Press.
20. Mitchell, C. J., Killedar, A., & Lovibond, P. F. (2005). Inference-based retrospective revaluation in human causal judgments requires knowledge of within-compound relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 31, 418-424. (Pubitemid 41650693)
21. Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization. Computer Journal, 8, 308-313.
22. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407-418.
23. Pearce, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101, 587-607. (Pubitemid 24976818)
24. Pineño, O. (2007). A response rule for positive and negative stimulus interaction in associative learning and performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1115-1124.
25. Pitt, M. A., & Myung, J. (2002). When a good fit can be a bad fit. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 441-445.
26. Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. (1992). Numerical recipes in FORTRAN; The art of scientific computing (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. 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.
28. Shanks, D. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 291-309.
29. Siegel, S., Allan, L. G., Hannah, S. D., & Crump, M. J. (2009). Applying signal detection theory to contingency assessment. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 4, 116-134. Retrieved from http://psyc.queensu.ca/ccbr/index.html.
30. Singer, M., Gagnon, N., & Richards, E. (2002). Strategies of text retrieval: A criterion shift account. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 41-57.
31. Spellman, B. A. (1996a). Acting as intuitive scientists: Judgments are made while controlling for alternative potential causes. Psychological Science, 7, 337-342.
32. Spellman, B. A. (1996b). Conditionalizing causality. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Causal learning, Vol. 34, pp. 167-200). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33. Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2007). Sometimes-competing retrieval (SOCR): A formalization of the comparator hypothesis. Psychological Review, 114, 759-783.
34. Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1379-1396. (Pubitemid 126528689)
35. Thomas, E. A. C. (1975). Criterion adjustment and probability matching. Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 158-162.
36. Treisman, M. (1984a). Contingent aftereffects and situationally coded criteria. In J. Gibbon & L. G. Allan (Eds.), Timing and time perception (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 423, pp. 131-141). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. (Pubitemid 14122534)
37. Treisman, M. (1984b). A theory of criterion setting: An alternative to the attention band and response ratio hypotheses in magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 113, 443-463.
38. Treisman, M., & Williams, T. C. (1984). A theory of criterion setting with an application to sequential dependencies. Psychological Review, 91, 68-111.
39. Verde, M. F., & Rotello, C. M. (2007). Memory strength and the decision process in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 254-262. (Pubitemid 46984665)