Abstract
Judgmental asymmetries in using causal knowledge (e.g., for prediction or diagnosis) have been attributed to the inherent directionality of causal knowledge. The present study examines the effect of acquisition context—representations used for initial instruction, and the type of judgment required during acquisition—on judgments using causal rules. In contrast to traditional concept formation research, this paradigm examined the development of procedures for using rules, rather than rule induction. College-student subjects learned to use causal rules describing digital logic gates, receiving instruction with either verbal rules or truth tables, and practicing either predicting or verifying logic-gate outputs. After 200 trials of practice with each rule, subjects were transferred to the untrained judgment task. Transfer was strongly asymmetrical. Subjects trained to make prediction judgments were slowed substantially by transfer to the verification task, while subjects trained to make verification judgments had little difficulty with transfer to the prediction task. Truth-table representations resulted in superior performance, especially for verification judgments. Contrary to prediction, verification judgments always required more time. The results demonstrate that acquisition context may be partly responsible for judgmental asymmetries, and imply that examining conditions of acquisition is important for understanding how causal knowledge is used.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Battig, W. F. (1979). The flexibility of human memory. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human Memory (pp. 23–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1970). Knowing and using concepts.Psychological Review,77, 546–556.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., &Austin, G. A. (1956).A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, J. I. D. (1987). Production, verification, and priming of multiplication facts.Memory & Cognition,15, 349–364.
Carlson, R. A. (1989). Processing nonlinguistic negation.American Journal of Psychology,102, 211–224.
Carpenter, P. A., &Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification.Psychological Review,82, 45–73.
Cheng, P. W., &Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas.Cognitive Psychology,17, 391–416.
Clark, H. H., &Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures.Cognitive Psychology,3, 472–517.
Dodd, D. H., Kinsman, R. A., Klipp, R. D., &Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1971). Effects of logic pretraining on conceptual rule learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 119–122.
Dulany, D. E. (1974). On the support of cognitive theory in opposition to behavior theory: A methodological problem. In W. B. Weimer & D. S. Palermo (Eds.),Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. 43–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Einhorn, H. J., &Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause.Psychological Bulletin,99, 3–19.
Hiew, C. C. (1977). Sequence effects in rule learning and conceptual generalization.American Journal of Psychology,90, 207–218.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Levine, M. (1975).A cognitive theory of learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade.Psychological Review,86, 287–330.
Rosenbloom, P., &Newell, A. (1987). Learning by chunking: A production system model of practice. In D. Klahr, P. Langley, & R. Neches (Eds.),Production system models of learning and development (pp. 221–286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, B. H. (1984). Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive skill.Cognitive Psychology,16, 371–416.
Schneider, W., &Detweiler, M. (1988). A connectionist/control architecture for working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol 21, pp 53–119). New York. Academic Press.
Schustak, M. W., &Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 101–120.
Shea, J. B., &Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Learning & Memory,5, 179–187.
Trabasso, R., Rollins, H., &Shaughnessy, E. (1971) Storage and verification stages in processing concepts.Cognitive Psychology,2, 239–289.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgment under uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 49–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wason, P. c., &Jones, S. (1963). Negatives: Denotalion and connotation.British Journal of Psychology,54, 299–307.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by the Army Research Institute, under Contract MDA903-86-C-0149 to Walter Schneider.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlson, R.A., Schneider, W. Acquisition context and the use of causal rules. Memory & Cognition 17, 240–248 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198462
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198462