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.
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:10.1080/713932633
Costa, D. S. J. (2009). Maintenance of behaviour when reinforcement becomes delayed. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney.
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:10.1080/17470210601001084
Dickinson, A. (1980). Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fiedler, K., Freytag, P., & Meiser, T. (2009). Pseudocontingencies: An integrative account of an intriguing cognitive illusion. Psychological Review, 116, 187–206. doi:10.1037/a0014480
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.
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.
Hollis, K. L. (1997). Contemporary research on Pavlovian conditioning: A “new” functional analysis. American Psychologist, 52, 956–965. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.9.956
Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 79, 1–17.
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:10.1037/0278-73126.96.36.199
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:10.1037/0278-73188.8.131.524
Mitchell, C. J., Lovibond, P. F., & Gan, C. Y. (2005). A dissociation between causal judgment and outcome recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 950–954.
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/h0025984
Shanks, D. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 291–309. doi:10.1080/17470210601000581
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:10.1080/17470210601002520
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.
Support for the present research was provided by Grant SEJ2007-63691/ PSIC from Dirección General de Investigación of the Spanish Government, Grant PI2008-9 from Departamento de Educación, Universidades e Investigación of the Basque Government, and Grant P08-SEJ-3586 from Junta de Andalucía. F.B. was supported by fellowships BFI081.020.0 and BFI04.484 from the Basque Government. He is now at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
About this article
Cite this article
Blanco, F., Matute, H. & Vadillo, M.A. Contingency is used to prepare for outcomes: Implications for a functional analysis of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 117–121 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.117
- Skin Rash
- Pavlovian Conditioning
- Nonhuman Animal
- Contingency Learning
- Causal Judgment