Abstract
revision accepted for publication June 10, 2005.) According to higher order reasoning accounts of human causal learning (e.g., Lovibond, Been, Mitchell, Bouton, & Frohardt, 2003; Waldmann & Walker, 2005) ceiling effects in forward blocking (i.e., smaller blocking effects when the outcome occurs with a maximal intensity on A1 and AX1 trials) are due to the fact that people are uncertain about the causal status of a blocked cue X in a forward blocking design when the outcome is always fully present on A1 and AX1 trials. This should not be the case for a reduced overshadowing cue Y (B — trials followed by BY1 trials). We tested this hypothesis by asking participants which additional information they preferred to see after seeing all learning trials. Results showed (1) that all participants preferred to see the effect of the blocked cue X over seeing the effect of the reduced overshadowing cue Y (Experiment 1), and (2) that more participants preferred to see the blocked cue X on its own when the outcome on A1 and AX1 trials was fully present than when the outcome on those trials had a submaximal intensity (Experiment 2).
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., Pineño, O., &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.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Cheng, P. W., &Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In H. L. Roitblat & J.-A. Meyer (Eds.),Comparative approaches to cognitive science (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cheng, P. W., &Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,58, 545–567.
De Houwer, J. (2002). Forward blocking depends on retrospective inferences about the presence of the blocked cue during the elemental phase.Memory & Cognition,30, 24–33.
De Houwer, J., &Beckers, T. (2003). Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56B, 345–357.
De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., &Glautier, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 965–985.
De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., &Vandorpe, S. (2005). Evidence for the role of higher order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena.Learning & Behavior,33, 239–249.
De Houwer, J., Vandorpe, S., &Beckers, T. (2005). On the role of controlled cognitive processes in human associative learning. In A. Wills (Ed.),New directions in human associative learning (pp. 41–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., &Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.),Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dickinson, A., &Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49B, 60–80.
Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., &Evenden, J. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 29–50.
Glymour, C. (2003). Learning, prediction and causal Bayes nets.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 43–48.
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., &Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets.Psychological Review,111, 3–32.
Kruschke, J. K. (2001). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,45, 812–863.
Kruschke, J. K., &Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 636–645.
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.
Lovibond, P. F., Been, S.-L., Mitchell, C. J., Bouton, M. E., &Frohardt, R. (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude.Memory & Cognition,31, 133–142.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
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.
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.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,119, 3–22.
Sobel, D. M., Tenenbaum, J. B., &Gopnik, A. (2004). Children’s causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers.Cognitive Science,28, 303–333.
Steyvers, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., Wagenmakers, E.-J., &Blum, B. (2003). Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions.Cognitive Science,27, 453–489.
Tenenbaum, J. B., &Griffiths, T. L. (2003). Theory-based causal inference. In S. Becker, S. Thrun, & K. Obermayer (Eds.),Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 15, pp. 35–42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vandorpe, S., &De Houwer, J. (2005). A comparison of forward blocking and reduced overshadowing in human causal learning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 945–949.
Vandorpe, S., De Houwer, J., &Beckers, T. (2005). Further evidence for the role of inferential reasoning in forward blocking.Memory & Cognition,33, 1047–1056.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements.Learning & Motivation,25, 127–151.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 53–76.
Waldmann, M. R. (2001). Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: Evidence from an overshadowing paradigm.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 600–608.
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.
Waldmann, M. R., &Walker, J. M. (2005). Competence and performance in causal learning.Learning & Behavior,33, 211–229.
Wu, M., &Cheng, P. W. (1999). Why causation need not follow from statistical association: Boundary conditions for the evaluation of generative and preventative causal powers.Psychological Science,10, 92–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vandorpe, S., De Houwer, J. People want to see information that will help them make valid inferences in human causal learning. Memory & Cognition 34, 1133–1139 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193259
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193259