Evidence that a transient but cognitively demanding process underlies forward blocking

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 744-766

  Liu, Pei Pei ^a   Luhmann, Christian C ^a  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal learning; Cognitive load; Contingency learning; Forward blocking

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BODY TEMPERATURE; COGNITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; BODY TEMPERATURE; COGNITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84875956245     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.717952     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., Pineno, O. and Miller, R. R. 2005. Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 31: 238-249. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.238)
2. Beckers, T., Miller, R. R., De Houwer, J. and Urushihara, K. 2006. Reasoning rats: Forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135: 92-102. (doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.92)
3. Beesley, T. and Le Pelley, M. E. 2011. The influence of blocking on overt attention and associability in human learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37: 114-120. (doi:10.1037/a0019526)
4. Chapman, G. B. and Robbins, S. J. 1990. Cue interaction in human contingency judgement. Memory and Cognition, 18: 537-545. (doi:10.3758/BF03198486)
5. Cheng, P. W. 1997. From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104: 367-405. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367)
6. Cheng, P. W. and Novick, L. R. 1992. Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99: 365-382. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.365)
7. De Houwer, J. and Beckers, T. 2002a. Higher-order retrospective revaluation in human causal learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55: 137-151. (doi:10.1080/02724990143000216)
8. De Houwer, J. and Beckers, T. 2002b. Second-order backward blocking and unovershadowing in human causal learning. Experimental Psychology, 49: 27-33. (doi:10.1027/1618-3169.49.1.27)
9. De Houwer, J. and Beckers, T. 2003. Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56: 345-357. (doi:10.1080/02724990244000296)
10. Dennis, M. and Ahn, W. 2001. Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory & Cognition, 29: 152-164. (doi:10.3758/BF03195749)
11. Dickinson, A., Shanks, D. and Evenden, J. 1984. Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A: 29-50.
12. Evans, J. St. B. T. 2003. In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7: 454-459. (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012)
13. Evans, J. St. B. T. and Over, D. E. 1996. Rationality and reasoning, Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
14. Jenkins, H. M. and Ward, W. C. 1965. Judgement of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 79: 1-17.
15. Kahneman, D. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 58: 697-720. (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697)
16. Kamin, L. J. 1969. "Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning". In Punishment and aversive behavior, Edited by: Campbell, B. A. and Church, R. M. 279-296. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
17. Kruschke, J. K. 2001. Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45: 812-863. (doi:10.1006/jmps.2000.1354)
18. Kruschke, J. K. and Blair, N. J. 2000. Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7: 636-645. (doi:10.3758/BF03213001)
19. Kruschke, J. K., Kappenman, E. S. and Hetrick, W. P. 2005. Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associate blocking and highlighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 31: 830-845. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.830)
20. Le Pelley, M. E., Beesley, T. and Griffiths, O. 2011. Overt attention and predictiveness in human contingency learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37: 220-229. (doi:10.1037/a0021384)
21. Le Pelley, M. E., Oakeshott, S. M. and McLaren, I. P. L. 2005. Blocking and unblocking in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31: 56-70. (doi:10.1037/0097-7403.31.1.56)
22. Liu, P. and Luhmann, C. C. 2012. Evidence for on-line processing during causal learning, Unpublished manuscript
23. Lopez, F. J., Shanks, D. R., Almaraz, J. and Fernandez, P. 1998. Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 24: 672-694. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.672)
24. Lovibond, P. F. 2003. Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: Retrospective revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 29: 97-106. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.97)
25. Luhmann, C. C. and Ahn, W. 2011. Order effects during learning: Expectations and interpretations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 37: 568-587. (doi:10.1037/a0022970)
26. Mackintosh, N. J. 1975a. A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82: 276-298. (doi:10.1037/h0076778)
27. Mackintosh, N. J. 1975b. Blocking of conditioned suppression: Role of the first compound trial. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1: 335-345. (doi:10.1037/0097-7403.1.4.335)
28. Mitchell, C. J., Lovibond, P. F., Minard, E. and Lavis, Y. 2006. Forward blocking in human learning sometimes reflects the failure to encode a cue-outcome relationship. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59: 830-844. (doi:10.1080/17470210500242847)
29. Pineno, O. and Miller, R. R. 2007. Comparing associative, statistical, and inferential reasoning accounts of human contingency learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60: 310-329. (doi:10.1080/17470210601000680)
30. Posner, M. and Boies, S. 1971. Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78: 391-408. (doi:10.1037/h0031333)
31. Rescorla, R. A. and Wagner, A. R. 1972. "A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement". In Classical Conditioning II: Current research and theory, Edited by: Black, A. H. and Prokasy, W. F. 64-99. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
32. Shanks, D. R. 1985. Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 37: 1-21.
33. Sloman, S. A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 3-22. (doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3)
34. Sobel, D. M., Tenenbaum, J. B. and Gopnik, A. 2004. Children's causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 28: 303-333.
35. Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23: 645-726. (doi:10.1017/S0140525X00003435)
36. Waldmann, M. R. and Holyoak, K. J. 1992. Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121: 222-236. (doi:10.1037/0096-3445.121.2.222)
37. Wasserman, E. A. and Berglan, L. R. 1998. Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgment: The role of within-compound associations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51: 121-138.
38. Wills, A. J., Lavric, A., Croft, G. S. and Hodgson, T. L. 2007. Predictive learning, prediction errors, and attention: Evidence from event-related potentials and eye tracking. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19: 843-854. (doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.843)