Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 117–121 | Cite as

Contingency is used to prepare for outcomes: Implications for a functional analysis of learning

  • Fernando Blanco
  • Helena Matute
  • Miguel A. Vadillo
Brief Reports

Abstract

It is generally assumed that the function of contingency learning is to predict the occurrence of important events in order to prepare for them. This assumption, however, has scarcely been tested. Moreover, the little evidence that is available suggests just the opposite result. People do not use contingency to prepare for outcomes, nor to predict their occurrence, although they do use it to infer the causal and predictive value of cues. By using both judgmental and behavioral data, we designed the present experiments as a further test for this assumption. The results show that—at least under certain conditions—people do use contingency to prepare for outcomes, even though they would still not use it to predict their occurrence. The functional and adaptive aspects of these results are discussed in the present article.

Keywords

Skin Rash Pavlovian Conditioning Nonhuman Animal Contingency Learning Causal Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arcediano, F., Ortega, N., & Matute, H. (1996). A behavioral preparation for the study of human Pavlovian conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 270–283. doi:10.1080/713932633Google Scholar
  2. Costa, D. S. J. (2009). Maintenance of behaviour when reinforcement becomes delayed. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  3. De Houwer, J., Vandorpe, S., & Beckers, T. (2007). Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgments than on causal judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 418–432. doi:10.1080/17470210601001084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickinson, A. (1980). Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fiedler, K., Freytag, P., & Meiser, T. (2009). Pseudocontingencies: An integrative account of an intriguing cognitive illusion. Psychological Review, 116, 187–206. doi:10.1037/a0014480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Franssen, M., Clarysse, J., Beckers, T., van Vooren, P. R., & Baeyens, F. (in press). A free software package for a human online conditioned suppression preparation. Behavior Research Methods.Google Scholar
  7. Gredebäck, G., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2000). Rational assessments of covariation and causality. In L. R. Gleitman & K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 190–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Hollis, K. L. (1997). Contemporary research on Pavlovian conditioning: A “new” functional analysis. American Psychologist, 52, 956–965. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.9.956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 79, 1–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Matute, H., Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 182–196. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitchell, C. J., Lovibond, P. F., & Gan, C. Y. (2005). A dissociation between causal judgment and outcome recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 950–954.Google Scholar
  13. Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 66, 1–5. doi:10.1037/h0025984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shanks, D. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 291–309. doi:10.1080/17470210601000581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vadillo, M. A., & Matute, H. (2007). Predictions and causal estimations are not supported by the same associative structure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 433–447. doi:10.1080/17470210601002520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vadillo, M. A., Miller, R. R., & Matute, H. (2005). Causal and predictive-value judgments, but not predictions, are based on cue-outcome contingency. Learning & Behavior, 33, 172–183.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Blanco
    • 1
  • Helena Matute
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Vadillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de PsicologíaUniversidad de DeustoBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations