Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In two experiments, humans were asked to judge the strength of a moderate contingency between a cue and an outcome in the presence of a second strong contingency between another cue and the outcome. The first experiment replicated the discounting effect whereby a strong contingency causes subjects to reduce or discount judgements of a moderate contingency. This experiment used a video-game procedure in which subjects camouflaged a tank to make it safe from mines. The second causal cue was the presence or absence of a spotter plane. Experiment 1 also ruled out the possibility that judgements might be determined by the number of co-occurrences of the cue and outcome as opposed to the level of contingency. The second experiment used an abstract scenario in which discounting was demonstrated when subjects were asked to judge the relationship between the occurrence of geometric objects. The instructions were neutral to discourage causal hypotheses. These results support the notion that judgements result from associative or connectionist processes and not from a two-step cognitive retrospective process in which an estimate of covariation is calculated between cue and outcome and then in a second step this information is used in a normative manner when a decision is made.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allan

L. G.

(1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society 15, 147–149.

Arkes

H. R.

Harkness

A. R.

(1983). Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology 112, 117–135.

Baker

A. G.

Berbrier

Vallée-Tourangeau

(1989). Judgements of a 2 x 2 contingency table: Sequential processing and the learning curve. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 41B, 65–97.

Baker

A. G.

Mercier

(1989). Attention, retrospective processing and cognitive representations. Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory. Klein

S. B.

Mowrer

R. R.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 85–116.

Baker

A. G.

Mercier

Vallée-Tourangeau

Frank

Pan

(1993). Selective associations and causality judgments: The presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19, 414–432.

Chapman

G. B.

(1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 17, 837–854.

Chapman

G. B.

Robbins

S. J.

(1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment. Memory and Cognition 18, 537–545.

Chatlosh

D. L.

Neunaber

D. J.

Wasserman

E. A.

(1985). Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students. Learning and Motivation 16, 1–34.

Cheng

P. W.

Novick

L. R.

(1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 545–567.

10.

Cheng

P. W.

Novick

L. R.

(1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review 99, 365–381.

11.

Dickinson

Shanks

D. R.

Evenden

(1984). Judgment of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36A, 29–50.

12.

Gluck

M. A.

Bower

G. H.

(1988). From conditioning to category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 17, 227–247.

13.

McClelland

J. L.

Rummelhart

D. C.

Hinton

G. E.

the PDP Group (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. Parallel distributed processing, Vol. 1: Foundations. Rummelhart

D. C.

McClelland

J. L.

Cambridge, MA: Bradford 3–46.

14.

Rescorla

R. A.

Wagner

A. R.

(1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. Black

A. H.

Prokasy

W. F.

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts 64–99.

15.

Rummelhart

D. E.

McClelland

J. L.

the PDP Group (1986). PDP models and general issues in cognitive science. Parallel distributed processing, Vol. 1: Foundations. Rummelhart

D. C.

McClelland

J. L.

Cambridge, MA: Bradford 110–146.

16.

Schultz

T. R.

(1982). Rules of causal attribution. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 47, (1, Serial No. 194).

17.

Schustack

M. W.

(1988). Thinking about causality. The psychology of human thought. Sternberg

R. J.

Smith

E. E.

New York: Cambridge University Press 99–115.

18.

Shanks

D. R.

(1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgments across trials. Memory and Cognition 13, 158–167.

19.

Shanks

D. R.

(1986). Acquisition functions in contingency judgment. Learning and Motivation 18, 147–166.

20.

Shanks

D. R.

(1991). Categorization by a connectionist network. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 17, 433–443.

21.

Shanks

D. R.

Dickinson

(1986). Associative accounts of causality judgment. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 21, 229–261.

22.

Wagner

A. R.

(1969). Stimulus validity and stimulus selection in associative learning. Fundamental issues in associative learning. Mackintosh

N. J.

Honig

W. K.

Halifax: Dalhousie University Press 90–122.

23.

Wagner

A. R.

Logan

F. A.

Haberlandt

Price

(1968). Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 76, 171–180.

24.

Waldmann

M. R.

Holyoak

K. J.

(1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 121, 222–236.

25.

Wasserman

E. A.

Chatlosh

D. L.

Neunaber

D. J.

(1983). Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures. Learning and Motivation 14, 406–432.

26.

Wasserman

E. A.

Elek

S. M.

Chatlosh

D. L.

Baker

A. G.

(1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19, 174–188.

Discounting in Causality and Covariation Judgements

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References