Abstract
Two experiments illustrate the way in which competition between potential causes occurs when subjects are asked to judge the extent to which an action is the cause of an outcome. In the first experiment, it was found that introducing occurrences of the outcome in the absence of the action reduced causality judgments, but this effect was attenuated if these outcomes were signaled by another stimulus. In the second experiment, a delay between the action and the outcome reduced judgments, but this could be abolished by inserting a stimulus between the action and the outcome. The results are discussed in terms of a view of causality judgment that assumes that such judgments are based on associations between the mental representations of the action and the outcome.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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.
Colwill, R. M., &Rescorla, R. A. (1986). Associative structures in instrumental learning. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 20). New York: Academic Press.
Dickinson, A., &Charnock, D. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37B, 397–416.
Durlach, P. J. (1983). Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,9, 374–389.
Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free operant behavior.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,34, 297–304.
Rescorla, R. A. (1982). Effect of a stimulus intervening between CS and US in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 131–141.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning 11: Current theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Shanks, D. R. (1986). Selective attribution and the judgment of causality.Learning & Motivation,17, 311–334.
Shanks, D. R. (1987). Acquisition functions in contingency judgment.Learning & Motivation,18, 147–166.
Shanks, D. R., &Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21). New York: Academic Press.
Shanks, D. R., &Pearson, S. M. (1987). A production system model of causality judgment.Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1988).Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wasserman, E. A., Chatlosh, D. L., &Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant proceduresLearning & Motivation,14, 406–432.
Wasserman, E. A., &Neunaber, D. J. (1986). College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations. The role of temporal contiguity.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,46, 15–35.
Williams, B. A., &Heyneman, N. (1982). Multiple determinants of “blocking” effects on operant behavior.Animal Learning & Behavior,10, 72–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shanks, D.R. Selectional processes in causality judgment. Memory & Cognition 17, 27–34 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199554
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199554