Previous studies demonstrated that participants will retrospectively adjust their ratings about the relation between a target cue and an outcome on the basis of information about the causal status of a competing cue that was previously paired with the target cue. We demonstrate that such retrospective revaluation effects occur not only for target cues with which the competing cue was associated directly, but also for target cues that were associated indirectly with the competing cue. These second-order and third-order retrospective revaluation effects are compatible with certain implementations of the probabilistic contrast model and with a modified, extended comparator model, but cannot be explained on the basis of a revised Rescorla—Wagner model or a revised SOP model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlaisdellA. P.BristolA. S.GuntherL. M.MillerR. R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: Support for the comparator hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes24, 335–351.
2.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review104, 367–405.
3.
ChengP. W.HolyoakK. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction.Comparative approaches to cognition.MeyerJ.-A.RoitblatH.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press271–302.
4.
ChengP. W.NovickL. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction.Journal of Personality ana Social Psychology58, 545–567.
5.
De HouwerJ.Forward blocking depends on retrospective inferences about the presence of the blocked cue during the elemental phase.Memory and Cognition in press.
6.
De HouwerJ.SeekersT.GlautierS.Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking.Quarterly Journal of 'Experimental Psychology: A in press.
7.
DennistonJ. C.SavastanoH J.MillerR. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength.Handbook of contemporary learning theories.MowrerR. R.KleinS. B.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc65–117.
8.
DickinsonA.BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49B, 60–80.
9.
DwyerD. M.MackintoshN. J.BoakesR. A. (1998). Simultaneous activation of the representations of absent cues results in the formation of an excitatory association between them.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes24, 163–171.
10.
LarkinM. J. W.AitkenM. R. F.DickinsonA. (1998). Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learmng, Memory, and Cognition24, 1331–1352.
11.
LippO. V.SiddleD. A. T.DallP. J. (1993). Effects of miscuing on Pavlovian conditioned responding and on probe reaction time.Australian Journal of Psychology45, 161–167.
12.
LopezF. J.ShanksD. R.AlmarazJ.FernandezP. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgements: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition24, 672–694.
13.
MaldonadoA.CatenaA.CandidoA.GarciaI. (1999). The belief revision model: Asymmetrical effects of noncontingency on human covariation learning.Animal Learning and Behavior27, 168–180.
14.
MillerR. R.MatzelL. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations.The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 22: Advances in research and theory.BowerG.H.San Diego, CA: Academic Press51–92.
15.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory.BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F.New York: Appleton64–99.
16.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement.Memory and Cognition13, 158–167.
17.
ShanksD. R.LopezF. J.DarbyR. J.DickinsonA. (1996). Distinguishing associative and probabilistic contrast theories of human contingency judgment.The psychology of learning and motivation, VoI 43: Causal learning.ShanksD. R.HolyoakK. J.MedinD. L.San Diego, CA: Academic Press265–355.
18.
Van HammeL. J.WassermanE. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements.Learning and Motivation25, 127–151.
19.
WagnerA. R. (1981). Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms.SpearN. E.MillerR. R.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc5–47.
20.
WaldmannM. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26, 53–76.
21.
WaldmannM. R.HolyoakK. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General121, 22–236.
