Abstract
In four experiments, the predictions made by causal model theory and the Rescorla-Wagner model were tested by using a cue interaction paradigm that measures the relative response to a given event based on the influence or salience of an alternative event. Experiments 1 and 2 uncorrelated two variables that have typically been confounded in the literature (causal order and the number of cues and outcomes) and demonstrated that overall contingency judgments are influenced by the causal structure of the events. Experiment 3 showed that trial-by-trial prediction responses, a second measure of causal assessment, were not influenced by the causal structure of the described events. Experiment 4 revealed that participants became less sensitive to the influence of the causal structure in both their ratings and their predictions as trials progressed. Thus, two experiments provided evidence for highlevel (causal reasoning) processes, and two experiments provided evidence for low-level (associative) processes. We argue that both factors influence causal assessment, depending on what is being asked about the events and participants’ experience with those events.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,15, 147–149.
Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Vall.e-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., &Pan, M. (1993). Selective association and causality judgments: Presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 414–432.
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.
Collins, D. J., &Shanks, D. R. (2002). Momentary and integrative response strategies in causal judgment.Memory & Cognition,30, 1138–1147.
Hagmayer, Y., &Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Simulating causal models: The way to structural sensitivity. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.),Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 82, pp. 214–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Howell, D. C. (1997).Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Duxbury.
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, & 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.
Mehta, R. R. (2000).Contrasting associative and statistical theories of contingency judgments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
Price, P. C., &Yates, F. (1995). Associative and rule-based accounts of cue interaction in contingency judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1639–1655.
Sadeghi, H. (2003).Cue interaction and judgements of causality. Unpublished honors thesis, McMaster University.
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: 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.
Spellman, B. A. (1996a). Acting as intuitive scientists: Contingency judgments are made while controlling for alternative potential causes.Psychological Science,7, 337–342.
Spellman, B. A. (1996b). Conditionalizing causality. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation:Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 167–206). San Diego: Academic Press.
Tangen, J. M., &Allan, L. G. (2003). The relative effect of cue interaction.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56B, 279–300.
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.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of manner of information presentation.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,31, 457–460.
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., &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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196864.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tangen, J.M., Allan, L.G. Cue interaction and judgments of causality: Contributions of causal and associative processes. Memory & Cognition 32, 107–124 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195824
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195824