The present research was conducted to establish the validity of a novel procedure for measuring human contingency judgements aimed at shortening the length of conventional procedures. Cues and outcomes were simple geometric shapes that were presented in a rapid streaming fashion, reducing the length of a block of trials from several minutes to a few seconds. We establish the reliability of the procedure by replicating two central findings in the contingency judgement literature, and we elaborate on the importance of this method for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllanL. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society15, 147–149.
2.
AllanL. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative?.Psychological Bulletin114, 435–448.
3.
AllanL. G.JenkinsH. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence.Learning and Motivation14, 381–405.
4.
AllanL. G.SiegelS.TangenJ. M. (2005). A signal detection analysis of contingency data.Learning and Behaviour33, 250–263.
5.
AlloyL. B.AbramsonL. Y. (1979). Judgments of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students. Sadder but wiser?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General108, 441–485.
6.
De HouwerJ.BeckersT. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theory on human contingency learning research.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55B, 289–310.
7.
DickinsonA.ShanksD.EvendenJ. (1984). Judgment of act–outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology36A, 29–50.
8.
GallistelC. R. (2002). Frequency, contingency and the information processing theory of conditioning.Frequency processing and cognition. SedlmeierP.BetschT.Oxford, UK: University Press.
9.
GigerenzerG.HoffrageU. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats.Psychological Review102, 684–704.
10.
GluckM. A.BowerG. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 227–247.
11.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysicsNew York: Wiley.
12.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions.Psychological Review103, 582–591.
13.
KaoS. E.WassermanE. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19, 1363–1386.
14.
MandelD.LehmanD. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General127, 269–285.
15.
PeralesJ.CatenaA.GonzalezJ.ShanksD. (2005). Dissociation between judgments and outcome-expectancy measures in covariation learning: A signal detection theory approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition31, 1105–1120.
16.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement.Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. BlackA. H.ProkosyW. F.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts64–99.
17.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology37B, 1–21.
18.
ShanksD. R. (1986). Selective attribution and the judgment of causality.Learning and Motivation17, 311–334.
19.
WassermanE. A.ChatloshD. L.NeunaberD. J. (1983). Perceptions of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response–outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures.Learning and Motivation14, 406–432.
20.
WassermanE. A.ShakleeH. (1984). Judging response–outcome relations: The role of response–outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation.Memory & Cognition12, 170–286.
