AllanL. G.SiegelS.HannahS. (2007). The sad truth about depressive realism.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 482–495.
2.
BeckersT.MillerR. R.De HouwerJ.UrushiharaK. (in press). Reasoning rats: Forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
3.
BoothS. L.BuehnerM. J. (2007). Asymmetries in cue competition in forward and backward blocking designs: Further evidence for causal model theory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 387–399.
4.
CobosP. L.LópezF. J.LuqueD. (2007). Interference between cues of the same outcome depends on the causal interpretation of the events.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 369–386.
5.
De HouwerJ.VandorpeS.BeckersT. (2007). Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgments than on causal judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 418–432.
6.
DickinsonA.ShanksD. R.EvendenJ. L. (1984). Judgement of act–outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology36A, 29–50.
7.
HagmayerY.WaldmannM. R. (2007). Inferences about unobserved causes in human contingency learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 330–355.
8.
KarazinovD. M.BoakesR. A. (2007). Second order conditioning in human predictive judgements when there is little time to think.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 448–460.
9.
MillerR. R.MatuteH. (1996). Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General125, 370–386.
10.
MitchellC. J.LiveseyE.LovibondP. F. (2007). A dissociation between causal judgement and the ease with which a cause is categorised with its effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 400–417.
11.
MsetfiR. M.MurphyR. A.SimpsonJ. (2007). Depressive realism and the effect of inter-trial-interval on judgements of zero, positive and negative contingencies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 461–481.
12.
PineñoO.MillerR. R. (2007). Comparing associative, statistical, and inferential reasoning accounts of human contingency learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 310–329.
13.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials.Memory & Cognition13, 158–167.
14.
ShanksD. R. (1986). Selective attribution and the judgment of causality.Learning and Motivation17, 311–334.
15.
ShanksD. R. (1987). Acquisition functions in contingency judgment.Learning and Motivation18, 147–166.
16.
ShanksD. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 291–309.
17.
VadilloM. A.MatuteH. (2007). Predictions and causal estimations are not supported by the same associative structure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 433–447.
18.
VandorpeS.De HouwerJ.BeckersT. (2007). Outcome maximality and additivity training also influence cue competition in causal learning when learning involves many cues and events.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 356–368.
