Associative learning theory postulates two main determinants for human causal learning: contingency and contiguity. In line with such an account, participants in Shanks, Pearson, and Dickinson (1989) failed to discover causal relations involving delays of more than two seconds. More recent research has shown that the impact of contiguity and delay is mediated by prior knowledge about the timeframe of the causal relation in question. Buehner and May (2002, 2003) demonstrated that the detrimental effect of delay can be significantly reduced if reasoners are aware of potential delays. Here we demonstrate for the first time that the negative influence of delay can be abolished completely by a subtle change in the experimental instructions. Temporal contiguity is thus not essential for human causal learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhnW.-K., KalishC. W., MedinD. L., & GelmanS. A. (1995). The role of covariation vs. mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299–352.
2.
AndersonJ. R., & SheuC. F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory and Cognition,23, 510–524.
3.
BuehnerM. J., & ChengP. W.(1997). Causal induction: The power PC theory versus the Rescorla-Wagner model. In ShaftoM. G.LangleyP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4.
BuehnerM. J., & MayJ. (2002). Knowledge mediates the timeframe of covariation assessment in human causal induction. Thinking and Reasoning,8, 269–295.
5.
BuehnerM. J., & MayJ. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 865–890.
6.
BullockM.GelmanR., & BaillargeonR.(1982). The development of causal reasoning. In FriedmanW. J. (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 209–254). New York: Academic Press.
7.
ChapmanG. B., & RobbinsS. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment. Memory and Cognition,18, 537–545.
8.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
9.
DickinsonA. (2001). Causal learning: An associative analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 3–25.
GallistelC. R.(2002). Frequency, contingency and the information processing theory of conditioning. In SedlmeierP.BetschT. (Eds.), Frequency processing and cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
GallistelC. R., & GibbonJ. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review,107, 289–344.
13.
GarciaJ.ErvinF. R., & KoellingR. A. (1966). Learning with prolonged delay of reinforcement. Psychonomic Science,5, 121–122.
14.
HumeD. (1888). A treatise of human nature. In Selby-BiggeL. A. (Ed.), Hume's treatise of human nature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739.)
15.
JenkinsH., & WardW. (1965). Judgment of contingencies between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs,7, 1–17.
16.
LoberK., & ShanksD. R. (2000). Is causal induction based on causal power? Critique of Cheng (1997). Psychological Review,107, 195–212.
17.
MichotteA. E. (1963). The perception of causality (T. R. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen & Co. (Original work published 1946.)
18.
MillerR. R., & BarnetR. C. (1993). The role of time in elementary associations. Current Directions in Psychological Science,2, 106–111.
19.
ReedP. (1992). Effect of a signaled delay between an action and outcome on human judgment of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 81–100.
20.
ReedP. (1999). Role of a stimulus filling an action-outcome delay in human judgments of causal effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 92–102.
21.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H. & ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
22.
SchlottmannA. (1999). Seeing it happen and knowing how it works: How children understand the relation between perceptual causality and underlying mechanism. Developmental Psychology,35, 303–317.
23.
SchlottmannA., & ShanksD. R. (1992). Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 321–342.
24.
ShanksD. R. (1993). Human instrumental learning: A critical-review of data and theory. British Journal of Psychology,84, 319–354.
25.
ShanksD. R., & DickinsonA.(1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 21, pp. 229–261). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26.
ShanksD. R.HolyoakK. J., & MedinD. L. (Eds.). (1996). The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27.
ShanksD. R.PearsonS. M., & DickinsonA. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139–159.
28.
WaldmannM. R.(1996). Knowledge-based causal induction. In ShanksD. R.HolyoakK. J.MedinD.L. (Eds.), Causal learning (Vol. 34, pp. 47–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
WaldmannM. R., & HolyoakK. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 222–236.
30.
WassermanE. A., & NeunaberD. J. (1986). College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,46, 15–35.
31.
WhiteP. A. (1995). Use of prior beliefs in the assignment of causal roles: Causal powers versus regularity-base accounts. Memory and Cognition,23, 243–254.
