Abstract
When two causes for a given effect are simultaneously presented, it is natural to expect an effect of greater magnitude. However many laboratory tasks preclude such an additivity rule by imposing a ceiling on effect magnitude—for example, by using a binary outcome. Under these conditions, a compound of two causal cues cannot be distinguished from a compound of one causal cue and one noncausal cue. Two experiments tested the effect of additivity on cue competition. Significant but weak forward blocking and no backward blocking were observed in a conventional “allergy” causal judgment task. Explicit pretraining of magnitude additivity produced strong and significant forward and backward blocking. Additivity pretraining was found to be unnecessary for another cue competition effect, release from overshadowing, which does not logically depend on additivity. The results confirm that blocking is constrained when effect magnitude is constrained and provide support for an inferential account of cue competition.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Busemeyer, J. R., Myung, I. J., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). Cue competition effects: Empirical tests of adaptive network learning models.Psychological Science,4, 190–195.
Chapman, G. B., &Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
Cheng, P. W. (1993). Separating causal laws from casual facts: Pressing the limits of statistical relevance. In D. L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (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.
De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., &Glautier, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 965–985.
Dickinson, A. (1980).Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, A., &Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49B, 60–80.
Gluck, M. A., &Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 227–247.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., &Byrne, R. M. J. (1991).Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). 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.
Larkin, M. J. W., Aitken, M. R. F., &Dickinson, A. (1998). Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1331–1352.
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., &Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,28, 3–31.
Lovibond, P. F., Siddle, D. A. T., &Bond, N. (1988). Insensitivity to stimulus validity in human Pavlovian conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40B, 377–410.
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 (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mitchell, C. J., &Lovibond, P. F. (2002). Backward and forward blocking in human autonomic conditioning requires an assumption of outcome additivity.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55B, 311–329.
O’Brien, R. G., &Kaiser, M. K. (1985). MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer.Psychological Bulletin,97, 316–333.
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.
Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37B, 1–21.
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.
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.
Wasserman, E. A., &Berglan, L. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgment: The role of within-compound associations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51B, 121–138.
White, P. A. (2001). Causal judgments about relations between multilevel variables.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 499–513.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Australian Research Council Grant A10007157 to P.F.L.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peter F., P.F., Been, SL., Mitchell, C.J. et al. Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory & Cognition 31, 133–142 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196088
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196088