Abstract
Shanks and Lopez (1996) reported three experiments in which they attempted to test whether causal order affects cue selection, and concluded that it does not. Their study provides an opportunity to highlight some basic methodological criteria that must be met in order to test whether and how causal order influences learning. In particular, it is necessary to (1) ensure that participants consistently interpret the learning situation in terms of directed cause-effect relations; (2) measure the causal knowledge they acquire; (3) manipulate causal order; and (4) control the statistical relations between cause and effect. With respect to these criteria, each experiment reported by Shanks and Lopez fails on multiple counts. Moreover, several aspects of the results reported by Shanks and Lopez are explained by causal-model theory, but not by associative accounts. Their study thus adds to a growing body of evidence from different laboratories indicating that human contingency learning can be guided by causal interpretation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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.
Baker, A. G., &Mazmanian, D. (1989). Selective associations in causality judgments II: A strong relationship may facilitate judgments of a weaker one. InProceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 538–545). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chapman, G. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 837–854.
Chapman, G. B., &Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
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. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction.Psychological Review,99, 365–382.
Cheng, P. W., Park, J.-Y., 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: Causal learning (Vol. 34, pp. 313–355). San Diego: Academic Press.
Davey, G. C. L., &Singh, J. (1988). The Kamin “blocking” effect and electrodermal conditioning in humans.Journal of Psychophysiology,2, 17–25.
Dawes, R. M. (1988).Rational choice in an uncertain world. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 249–267). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gallistel, C. R. (1990).The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gluck, M., &Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 227–247.
Hume, D. (1739/1978).A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
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.
Martin, I., &Levey, A. B. (1991). Blocking observed in human eyelid conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43B, 233–256.
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, 182–296.
Melz, E. R., Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., &Waldmann, M. R. (1993). Cue competition in human categorization: Contingency or the Rescorla-Wagner learning rule? Comments on Shanks (1991).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1398–1410.
Miller, R. R., Barnet, R. C., &Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model.Psychological Bulletin,117, 363–386.
Pearl, J. (1988).Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Reichenbach, H. (1956).The direction of time. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rescorla, R. A. (1991). Associations of multiple outcomes with an instrumental response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,17, 465–474.
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.
Salmon, W. (1971). Statistical explanation. In W. Salmon (Ed.),Statistical explanation and statistical relevance (pp. 29–87). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37B, 1–21.
Shanks, D. R. (1991). Categorization by a connectionist network.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 433–443.
Shanks, D. R. (1993). Associative versus contingency accounts of category learning: Reply to Melz, Cheng, Holyoak, and Waldmann (1993).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1411–1423.
Shanks, D. R., &Lopez, F. J. (1996). Causal order does not affect cue selection in human associative learning.Memory & Cognition,24, 511–522.
Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. L., & Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications.Psychological Monographs,75(13, Whole No. 517).
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),Progress in social psychology (pp. 49–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
von Wright, G. H. (1971).Explanation and understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
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: Causal learning (Vol. 34, pp. 47–88). San Diego: Academic Press.
Waldmann, M. R., &Hagmayer, Y. (1995). Causal paradox: When a cause simultaneously produces and prevents an effect. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.),Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 425–430). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 222–236.
Waldmann, M. R., Holyoak, K. J., &Fratianne, A. (1995). Causal models and the acquisition of category structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 181–206.
Wasserman, E. A. (1990). Attribution of causality to common and distinctive elements of compound stimuli.Psychological Science,1, 298–302.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this paper was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9310614 to K. Holyoak.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Waldmann, M.R., Holyoak, K.J. Determining whether causal order affects cue selection in human contingency learning: Comments on Shanks and Lopez (1996). Memory & Cognition 25, 125–134 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197290
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197290