Assessing (in)sensitivity to causal asymmetry: A matter of degree

New Directions in Human Associative Learning

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 65-93

  Tangen, Jason M ^a   Allan, Lorraine G ^a   Sadeghi, Hedyeh ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84917278373     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410612113     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
2. Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., & Pan, M. (1993). Selective association and causality judgments: Presence of a strong causal fac-tor may reduce judgments of a weaker one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 414-432.
3. Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1996). Associative and normative models of cause. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 1-45). San Diego: Academic Press.
4. Chapman, G. B., & Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment. Memory & Cognition, 18, 537-545.
5. Cobos, P. L., López, F. J., Caño, A., Almaraz, J., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). Mechanisms of predictive and diagnostic causal induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 331-346.
6. Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). Momentary and integrative response strategies in causal judgment. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1138-1147.
7. Dickinson, A., & Shanks, D. R. (1985). Animal learning and human causality judgment. In L. G. Nilson & T. Archer (Eds.), Perspectives on learning and memory (pp. 167-191). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Dickinson, A., Shanks, D. R., & Evenden, J. (1984). Judgment of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29-50.
9. Kamin, L. J. (1968). "Attention-like" processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami symposium on the production of behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9-33). Miami, FL: University of Miami Press.
10. Kamin, L. J. (1969a). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279-296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
11. Kamin, L. J. (1969b). Selective association and conditioning. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 42-64). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Dalhousie University Press.
12. López, F. J., Shanks, D. R., Almaraz, J., & Fernandez, P. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 672-694.
13. Matute, H., Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 22, 182-196.
14. Mehta, R. R. (2000). Contrasting associative and statistical theories of contingency judgments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
15. Miller, R. R., Barnet, R. C., & Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 363-386.
16. Price, P. C., & Yates, F. (1995). Associative and rule-based accounts of cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1639-1655.
17. 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.
18. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. B, Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 37B, 1-21.
19. Shanks, D. R., & López, F. J. (1996). Causal order does not affect cue selection in human associative learning. Memory & Cognition, 24, 511-522.
20. Siegel, S., & Allan, L. G. (1996). The widespread influence of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 3, 314-321.
21. Tangen, J. M., & Allan, L. G. (2003). The relative effect of cue-interaction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. B, Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56B, 279-300.
22. Tangen, J. M., & Allan, L. G. (2004). Cue-interaction and judgments of causality: Contributions of causal and associative processes. Memory & Cognition, 32, 107-124.
23. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Baker, A. G., & Mercier, P. (1994). Discounting in causality and covariation judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. B, Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47B, 151-171.
24. Van Hamme, L. J., Kao, S. F., &Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Judging interevent relations: From cause to effect and from effect to cause. Memory & Cognition, 21, 802-808.
25. Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., Haberlandt, K., & Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 171-180.
26. Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 53-76.
27. Waldmann, M. R. (2001). Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: Evidence from an overshadowing paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 600-608.
28. Waldmann, M. R.,&Hagmayer, Y. (1999). How categories shape causality. InM. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 82, pp. 761-766). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Waldmann, M. R., & Hagmayer, Y. (2001). Estimating causal strength: The role of structural knowledge and processing effort. Cognition, 82, 27-58.
30. Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1990). Can causal induction be reduced to associative learning? In Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 190-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222-236.
32. Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Determining whether causal order affects cue selection in human contingency learning: Comments on Shanks and Lopez (1996). Memory & Cognition, 25, 125-134.
33. Waldmann, M. R., Holyoak, K. J., & Fratianne, A. (1995). Causal models and the acquisition of category structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 181-206.
34. Wasserman, E. A. (1990). Attribution of causality to common and distinctive elements of compound stimuli. Psychological Science, 1, 298-302.
35. Williams, D. A. (1996). A comparative analysis of negative contingency learning in humans and nonhumans. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 89-125). San Diego: Academic Press.