Abstract
Two experiments examined the effect of various relationships between a response (pressing the space bar of a computer) and an outcome (a triangle flashing on a screen) on judgments of the causal effectiveness of the response. In Experiment 1, when responses were required to be temporarily isolated from each other prior to an outcome, ratings of the causal effectiveness of the responses were higher than in a condition in which the probability of an outcome following a response was the same but in which no temporal isolation was required. In Experiment 2, when a number of responses were required to be emitted temporally close to the outcome, ratings of the causal effectiveness of the responses were lower than in a condition in which the probabi1ity of an outcome following a response was the same but in which no temporal proximity was required. These results suggest that, in addition to the overall probability that an outcome will follow a response, the local context of responding at the time an outcome is presented is critical in influencing ratings of causal effectiveness.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alloy, L. B., &Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and non-depressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 441–485.
Chapman, G. B., &Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
Dickinson, A. (1985). Actions and habits: The development of behavioural autonomy.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Series B,308, 67–78.
Ferster, C. B., &Skinner, B. F. (1957).Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Morse, W. H. (1966). Intermittent reinforcement. In W. K. Honig (Ed.),Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 52–108). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Neunaber, D. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1986). The effects of unidirectional versus bidirectional rating procedures on college students’ judgments of response-outcome contingency.Learning & Motivation,17, 162- 179.
Peele, D. B., Casey, J., &Silberberg, A. (1984). Primacy of interresponse-time reinforcement in accounting for rates under variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,10, 149–167.
Reed, P. (1989). Marking effects in instrumental performance on DRH schedules.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41B, 337–353.
Reed, P. (1992).Effect of the schedule of outcome presentation on human judgments of causality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Shaklee, H., &Tucker, D. (1980). A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events.Memory & Cognition,8, 459–467.
Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human causality judgment.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.37B, 1–21.
Shanks, D. R., &Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 229–261). London: Academic Press.
Shanks, D. R., &Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity.Memory & Cognition,19, 353–360.
Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., &Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41B, 139–159.
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. (1990). Detecting response-outcome relations: Toward an understanding of the causal texture of the environment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.).The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 27–82). London: Academic Press.
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 procedures.Learning & Motivation,14, 406–432.
Wearden, J. H., &Clark.R. B. (1988). Interresponse time reinforcement and behavior under aperiodic reinforcement schedules: A case study using computer modelling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 200–211.
Zeiler.M. D. (1977). Schedules of reinforcement: The controlling variables. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.).Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reed, P. Effect of local context of responding on human judgment of causality. Memory & Cognition 20, 573–579 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199589
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199589