Abstract
Several experiments on human causal reasoning have demonstrated “discounting”-that the presence of a strong alternative cause may decrease the perceived efficacy of a moderate target cause. Some, but not all, of these effects have been shown to be attributable to subjects’ use of conditional rather than unconditional contingencies (i.e., subjects control for alternative causes). We review experimental results that do not conform to the conditionalizing contingency account of causal judgment. In four experiments, we demonstrate that there is “nonnormative discounting” above what is accounted for by conditionalization, that discounting may depend on the nature of the question put to the subjects, and that discounting can be affected by motivation. We conclude that because nonnormative discounting occurs for summary presentations as well as trial-by-trial presentations of information and because nonnormative discounting depends on motivation, it is not a necessary result of cue competition during the contingency learning process.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ahn, W., Kalish, C. W., Medin, D. L., &Gelman, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution.Cognition,54, 299–352.
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.
Alloy, L. B., &Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information.Psychological Review,91, 112–149.
Baker, A. G., Berbrier, M. W., &Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1989). Judgements of a 2 × 2 contingency table: Sequential processing and the learning curve.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41B, 65–97.
Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., &Pan, M. (1993). Selective associations 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.
Busemeyer, J. R., Myung, J., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). Cue competition effects: Empirical tests of adaptive network learning models.Psychological Science,4, 190–195.
Cech, C. G., &Shoben, E. J. (1985). Context effects in symbolic magnitude comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 299–315.
Chapman, G. B., &Robbins, S. I. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
Cheng, P. W. (1993). Separating causal laws from causal facts: Pressing the limits of statistical relevance. In D. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 30 (pp. 215–264). San Diego: Academic Press.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Cheng, P. W., &Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,58, 545–567.
Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. S., &Holyoak, K. J. (1996). A causal-power theory of focal sets. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 313–355). San Diego: Academic Press.
De Houwer, J., &Beckers, T. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53B, 289–310.
De Houwer, J., &Beckers, T. (2003). Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56B, 345–357.
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.
Fugelsang, J. A., &Thompson, V. A. (2001). Belief-based and covariation-based cues affect causal discounting.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,55, 70–76.
Hansen, R. D., &Hall, C. A. (1985). Discounting and augmenting facilitative and inhibitory forces: The winner takes almost all.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,49, 1482–1493.
Kao, S., &Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1363–1386.
Kelley, H. H. (1972a). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1–26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1972b). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Keppel, G. (1991).Design and analysis (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., &Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,66, 37–47.
Mandel, D. R., &Lehman, D. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 269–285.
Morris, M. W., &Larrick, R. P. (1995). When one cause casts doubt on another: A normative analysis of discounting in causal attribution.Psychological Review,102, 331–355.
Price, P. C., &Yates, J. F. (1993). Judgmental overshadowing: Further evidence of cue interaction in contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,21, 561–572.
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 nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schaller, M. (1992). In-group favoritism and statistical reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and maintenance of group stereotypes.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,63, 61–74.
Shanks, D. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgments across trials.Memory & Cognition,13, 158–167.
Shanks, D. R. (1991). On similarities between causal judgments in experienced and described situations.Psychological Science,2, 341–350.
Shanks, D. R. (1995). Is human learning rational?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A, 257–279.
Shanks, D. R., Holyoak, K. J., &Medin, D. L. (Eds.) (1996).The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 34: Causal learning. San Diego: Academic Press.
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.
Spellman, B. A., Price, C. M., &Logan, J. (2001). How two causes are different from one: The use of (un)conditional information in Simpson’s paradox.Memory & Cognition,29, 193–208.
Tangen, J. M., &Allan, L. G. (2003). The relative effect of cue interaction.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56B, 279–300.
Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Baker, A. G., &Mercier, P. (1994). Discounting in causality and covariation judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47B, 151–171.
Waldmann, M. R. (1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 47–88). San Diego: Academic Press.
Waldmann, M. R., &Hagmayer, Y. (1995). When a cause simultaneously produces and prevents an effect. InProceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 425–430). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Waldmann, M. R., &Hagmayer, Y. (2001). Estimating causal strength: The role of structural knowledge and processing effort.Cognition,82, 27–58.
Waldmann, M. R., &Holyoak, K. J. (1990). Can causal induction be reduced to associative learning? InProceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 190–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Waldmann, M. R., &Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning in cue competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 222–236.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by an NIMH grant to B.A.S. We thank Lorraine Allan, Karen Schmidt, Jason Tangen, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. We are also grateful to Heather Alexander, Clyner Antalon, Kyle Littman, Jessica Logan, Nadine Meyers, and Jennifer Samuelson for help with data collection.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goedert, K.M., Spellman, B.A. Nonnormative discounting: There is more to cue interaction effects than controlling for alternative causes. Learning & Behavior 33, 197–210 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196063
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196063