Abstract
The order in which people receive information has a substantial effect on subsequent judgment and inference. Our focus is on the order of covariation evidence in causal learning. The first experiment shows that the initial presentation of evidence suggesting a generative causal relationship (the joint presence or joint absence of cause and effect) leads to higher judged causal strength than does the initial presentation of evidence suggesting an inhibitory relationship (the presence of cause or effect in the absence of the other). Additional studies show that this primacy effect is unlikely to be due to fatigue or to an insufficient number of learning trials. These results are not readily explained by current contingency-based or associative theories of causal induction.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ahn, W., &Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.),Explanation and cognition (pp. 199–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allan, L. G., &Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives.Canadian Journal of Psychology,34, 1–11.
Alloy, L. B., &Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgments of contingency in depressed and nondepressed college students.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 441–485.
Anderson, N. H. (1981).Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H., &Jacobson, A. (1965). Effect of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,2, 531–539.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,41, 258–290.
Chapman, G. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 837–854.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Einhorn, H. J., &Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity.Psychological Review,85, 396–416.
Glymour, C., &Cheng, P. W. (1998). Causal mechanism and probability: A normative approach. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.),Rational models of cognition (pp. 295–313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hendrick, C., &Costantini, A. F. (1970). Effects of varying trait inconsistency and response requirements on the primacy effect in impression formation.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,15, 158–164.
Hogarth, R. M., &Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model.Cognitive Psychology,24, 1–55.
Hunt, S. M. J. (1994). MacProbe: A Macintosh-based experimenter’s workstation for the cognitive sciences.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,26, 345–351.
Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes.Psychological Monographs,79(1, Whole No. 594).
Klayman, J., &Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing.Psychological Review,94, 221–228.
López, F. J., Shanks, D. R., Almaraz, J., &Fernández, 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.
Matute, H., Arcediano, F., &Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 182–196.
Miller, R. R., Barnet, R. C., &Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model.Psychological Bulletin,117, 363–386.
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.
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. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schustack, M. W., &Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 101–120.
Shanks, D. R., &Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 229–261). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Shanks, D. R., &López, F. J. (1996). Causal order does not affect cue selection in human associative learning.Memory & Cognition,24, 511–522.
Shanks, D. R., López, F. J., Darby, R. J., &Dickinson, A. (1996). Distinguishing associative and probabilistic contrast theories of human contingency judgment. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),Causal learning: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 265–311). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Slovic, P., &Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,6, 649–744.
Snyder, M., &Swann, W. B., Jr. (1978). Hypothesis-testing in social interaction.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,36, 1202–1212.
Spellman, B. A. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: Contingency judgments are made while controlling for alternative potential causes.Psychological Science,7, 337–342.
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., &Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: Application of a theory. In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.),Inhibition and learning (pp. 301–336). London: Academic Press.
Ward, W. C., &Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency.Canadian Journal of Psychology,19, 231–241.
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,14, 129–140.
Wasserman, E. A., Chatlosh, D. L., &Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures.Learning & Motivation,14, 406–432.
Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. L., &Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 174–188.
Wasserman, E. A., Kao, S.-F., Van Hamme, L. J., Katagiri, M., &Young, M. E. (1996). Causation and association. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),Causal learning: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 208–264). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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.),Causal learning: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 89–131). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yates, J. F., &Curley, S. P. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement.Acta Psychologica,62, 293–302.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Support for this research was provided in part by National Institute of Health Grant NIH R01-MH57737 to W.-K.A. The experiments reported here were completed as part of the first author’s dissertation research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dennis, M.J., Ahn, WK. Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory & Cognition 29, 152–164 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195749
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195749