And now remains, That we find out the cause of this effect, Or rather say the cause of this defect, For this effect defective comes by cause. W. Shakespeare;HAMLET, II, ii
Abstract
A series of four experiments investigated college students’ judgments of interevent contingency. Subjects were asked to judge the effect of a discrete response Itapping a wire) on the occurrence of a brief outcome (a radio’s buzzing). Pairings of the possible event-state combinations (response-outcome, response-no outcome, no response-outcome, no response-no outcome) were presented in a summary-table (Experiments 2 and 4), in an unbroken-time-line (Experimente 1, 2, and 4), or in a broken-time-line format (Experiment 3). Subjects judged the extent to which the response caused the outcome or prevented it from occurring. Across all methods of information presentation, judgments were a positive function of response-outcome contingency and outcome probability. In the unbroken-time-line condition, judgments of negative response-outcome contingencies were less extreme than judgments of equivalent positive contingencies. This asymmetry was smaller in the broken-time-line condition and in those conditions in which subjects were encouraged to segment an unbroken time line into discrete response outcome units. Finally, judgments of positive and negative relationships were generally symmetrical in the summary-table condition. Relative to the two time-line portrayals, summary table judgments were also less influenced by the overall probability of outcome occurrence. These judgment differences among format conditions suggest that, depending on the method of information presentation, subjects differently partition event sequences into discrete event pairings.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurements of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,115, 147–149.
Allan, L. G., &Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response.Canadian Journal of Psychology,34, 1–11.
Allan, L. G., &Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence.Learning, and Motivation,14, 381–405.
Alloy, L. B., &Abaramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 441–485.
Chapman, L., &Chapman, J. (1967a). Gensis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,72, 193–204.
Chapman, L., &Chapman, J. (1967b). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,74, 271–280.
Crocker, J. (1981). Judgment of covariation by social perceivers.Psychological Bulletin,90, 272–292.
Erlick, D. E., &Mills, R. G. (1967). Perceptual quantification of conditional dependency.Journal of Experimental Psychology,43, 9–14.
Gruber, H. E., Fink, C. D., &Damm, V. (1957). Effects of experience on perception of causality.Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 89–93.
Heider, F. (1958).The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hume, D. (1962). A treatise of human nature. In A. Flew (Ed.),On human nature and the understanding. New York: Collier. (Original work published 1739)
Heider, F., &Piaget, J. (1958).The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Jenkins, H. M., &Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes.Psychological Monographs,79, 1–17.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974).The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press.
Morgan, C. L. (1893). The limits of animal intelligence.Fortnightly Review,54, 223–239.
Morgan, C. L. (1894).An introduction to comparative psychology. London: Walter Scott, Ltd.
Rescorla, R. A. (1978). Some implications of a cognitive perspective on Pavlovian conditioning. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seggie, J. (1975). The empirical observation of the Piagetian concept of correlation.Canadian Journal of Psychology,29, 32–42.
Seggie, J., &Endersby, H. (1972). The empirical implications of Piaget’s concept of correlation.Australian Journal of Psychology,24, 3–8.
Shaklee, H. (1983). Human covariation judgment: Accuracy and strategy.Learning and Motivation,14, 433–448.
Shaklee, H., &Hall, L. (1983). Methods of assessing strategies for judging covariation between events.Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 583–594.
Shaklee, H., &Mims, M. (1982). Sources of error judging event covariation: Effects of memory demands.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,8, 208–224.
Shaklee, H., TucKer, D. (1980). A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events.Memory & Cognition,8, 459–467.
Smedslund, J. (1963). The concept of correlation in adults.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,4, 165–173.
Ward, W. C., &Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency.Canadian Journal of Psychology,19, 231–241.
Wasserman, E. A., Chatlosh, D. L., &Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under freeoperant procedures.Learning and Motivation,14, 406–432.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant 79-14160 to E.A.W. and NIE Grant G-80-0091 to H.S.
Portions of this research were reported at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, PA, November 1981.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wasserman, E.A., Shaklee, H. Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation. Memory & Cognition 12, 270–286 (1984). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197676
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197676