Abstract
Traditional associative models assume that associative weights are updated on a trial-by-trial basis. As a result, it is usually expected that responses based on these weights will tend to reflect the most recently presented contingencies. However, a number of studies of human causal judgments have shown primacy effects, wherein judgments obtained at the end of a series of trials are more strongly influenced by a contingency that was in force early in the sequence than by a contingency that was in force later in the sequence. The experiments described in this article replicated other work showing that requesting causal judgments during a sequence can reverse primacy and produce strong recency effects. Evidence was also obtained to suggest that primacy effects are produced by an interaction between latent inhibition and extinction processes and that requesting a judgment affects both of these processes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on the measurement of contingency between two binary variables. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147–149.
Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 80–99.
Bouton, M. E. (1997). Signals for whether versus when an event will occur. In M. E. Bouton & M. S. Fanselow (Eds.), Learning, motivation, and cognition: The functional behaviorism of Robert C. Bolles (pp. 385–409). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Catena, A., Maldonado, A., & Cándido, A. (1998). The effect of the frequency of judgment and the type of trials on covariation learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 481–495.
Catena, A., Maldonado, A., Megías, J. L., & Frese, B. (2002). Judgement frequency, belief revision, and serial processing of causal information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 267–281.
Channell, S., & Hall, G. (1983). Contextual effects in latent inhibition with an appetitive conditioning procedure. Animal Learning & Behavior, 11, 67–74.
Collins, D. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). Momentary and integrative response strategies in causal judgment. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1138–1147.
Curley, S. P., Young, M. J., Kingrey, M. J., & Yates, F. (1988). Primacy effects in clinical judgements of contingency. Medical Decision Making, 8, 216–222.
Dennis, M. J., & Ahn, W.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory & Cognition, 29, 152–164.
Escobar, M., Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Latent inhibition in human adults without masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1028–1040.
Hall, G. (1991). Perceptual and associative learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Hall, G., & Honey, R. C. (1989). Contextual effects in conditioning, latent inhibition, and habituation: Associative and retrieval functions of contextual cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 232–241.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief-updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55.
Lubow, R. E. (1973). Latent inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 398–407.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press.
Matute, H., Vegas, S., & De Marez, P.-J. (2002). Flexible use of recent information in causal and predictive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 714–725.
Miller, R. R., & Escobar, M. (2001). Contrasting acquisition-focussed and performance-focussed models of acquired behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 141–145.
Nelson, J. B. (2002). Context specificity of excitation and inhibition in ambiguous stimuli. Learning & Motivation, 33, 284–310.
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.
Pineño, O., & Miller, R. R. (2005). Primacy and recency effects in extinction and latent inhibition: A selective review with implications for models of learning. Behavioural Processes, 69, 223–235.
Rescorla, R. A. (1971). Summation and retardation tests of latent inhibition. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 75, 77–81.
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 II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–69). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rosas, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (1997). Additivity of the effects of retention interval and context change on latent inhibition: Toward resolution of the context forgetting paradox. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 283–294.
Thomas, B. L., Larsen, N., & Ayres, J. J. B. (2003). Role of context similarity in ABA, ABC, and AAB renewal paradigms: Implications for theories of renewal and for treating human phobias. Learning & Motivation, 34, 410–436.
Vadillo, M. A., Vegas, S., & Matute, H. (2004). Frequency of judgment as a context-like determinant of predictive judgments. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1065–1075.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glautier, S. Recency and primacy in causal judgments: Effects of probe question and context switch on latent inhibition and extinction. Memory & Cognition 36, 1087–1093 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1087
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1087