Informing participants in a causal judgement task that outcomes are additive can increase blocking effects (Experiment 1). Outcome additivity information emphasizes the fact that the outcome following a compound is the sum of the effects of its elements. We suggest that the effect of providing outcome additivity information is to encourage elemental processing and thereby enhance blocking. Experiment 2 showed that blocking could be enhanced by factors encouraging elemental processing, and Experiment 3 demonstrated that blocking was reduced by manipulating the visual presentation of cues to encourage configural processing. While these experiments do not rule out the role of inference in causal judgement tasks, the results are most parsimoniously explained by associative accounts that allow flexibility in the encoding of compound cues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChapmanG. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 837–854.
2.
ChapmanG.B., & RobbinsS.J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgement. Memory & Cognition, 18, 537–545.
3.
DaveyG. C. L., & SinghJ. (1988). The Kamin óblockingó effect and electrodermal conditioning in humans. Journal of Psychophysiology, 2, 17–25.
4.
De HouwerJ., BeckersT., & GlautierS. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 965–985.
5.
DickinsonA., & BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60–80.
6.
DickinsonA.ShanksD., & EvendenJ. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29–50.
7.
GlautierS. (2002). Spatial separation of target and competitor cues enhances blocking of human causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 121–135.
8.
HealeyA. N., & GaffanE. A. (2001). Configural learning without configural training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 27, 373–393.
9.
KaminL. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In CampbellB. A. & ChurchR. M. (Ed.), Punishment and aversive behaviour (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
10.
KehoeE. J., & GrahamP. (1988). Summation and configuration: Stimulus compounding and negative patterning in the rabbit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 14, 320–333.
11.
LiveseyE. J. (2002). Reducing the whole to the sum of its parts: Outcome additivity and blocking in human causality judgement. Unpublished Honours dissertation, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Australia.
12.
LovibondP.F., BeenS.-L., MitchellC.J., BoutonM. E., & FrohardtR. (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgement is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory & Cognition, 31, 133–142.
13.
LovibondP. F.SiddleD. A. T., & BondN. (1988). Insensitivity to stimulus validity in human pavlovian conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40B, 377–410.
MartinI., & LeveyA. (1991). Blocking observed in human eyelid conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43B, 233–256.
16.
MitchellC. J., & LovibondP. F. (2002). Backward and forward blocking in human electrodermal conditioning: Blocking requires an assumption of outcome additivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 311–329.
17.
PearceJ. M. (2002). Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 73–95.
18.
RescorlaR.A.GrauJ.W., & DurlachP.J. (1985). Analysis of the unique cue in configural discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 11, 356–366.
19.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H., & ProkasyW. F. (Ed.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
20.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1–21.
21.
ShanksD. R.CharlesD.DarbyR. J., & AzmiA. (1998). Configural processes in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1353–1378.
22.
ShanksD.R., & DarbyR. J. (1998). Feature- and rule-based generalization in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 24, 405–415.
23.
ShanksD.R.DarbyR.J., & CharlesD. (1998). Resistance to interference in human associative learning: Evidence of configural processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 24, 136–150.
24.
Van HammeL. J., & WassermanE. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgements: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127–151.
WaldmannM. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 53–76.
27.
WaldmannM. R., & HolyoakK. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222–236.
28.
WilliamsD. A.SagnessK. E., & McPheeJ. E. (1994). Configural and elemental strategies in predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 694–709.
