Human participants were trained in a trial-by-trial contingency judgements task in which they had to predict the probability of an outcome (diarrhoea) following different cues (food names) in different contexts (restaurants). Cue P was paired with the outcome on half of the trials (partial reinforcement), while cue C was paired with the outcome on all the trials (continuous reinforcement), both cues in Context A. Test was conducted in both Context A and a different but equally familiar context (B). Context change decreased judgements to C, but not to P (Experiment 1). This effect was found only in the cue trained in the context where a different cue was partially reinforced (Experiment 2). Context switch effects disappeared when different cues received partial reinforcement in both contexts of training (Experiment 3). The implications of these results for an explanation of context switch effects in terms of ambiguity in the meaning of the cues prompting attention to the context (e.g., Bouton, 1997) are discussed.
AmselA. (1958). The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations.Psychological Bulletin55, 102–119.
2.
AmselA. (1992). Frustration theoryCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BakerA. G.MurphyR. A.Vallée-TourangeauF. (1996). Associative and normative models of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding cause.ShanksD. R.HolyoakK. J.MedinD. L.The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learningNew York: Academic Press1–45.
4.
BonardiC.HoneyR. C.HallG. (1990). Context specificity of conditioning in flavor-aversion learning: Extinction and blocking tests.Animal Learning & Behavior18, 229–237.
5.
BoughnerR. L.PapiniM. R. (2006). Survival of the partial reinforcement extinction effect after contextual shifts.Learning and Motivation37, 304–323.
6.
BoutonM. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.Psychological Bulletin114, 80–99.
7.
BoutonM. E. (1994). Context, ambiguity, and classical conditioning.Current Directions in Psychological Science3, 49–53.
8.
BoutonM. E. (1997). Signals for whether versus when an event will occur.BoutonM. E.FanselowM. S.Learning, motivation and cognition: The functional behaviourism of Robert C. BollesWashington, DC: American Psychological Association385–409.
9.
BoutonM. E.RickerS. T. (1994). Renewal of extinguished responding in a second context.Animal Learning & Behavior22, 317–324.
10.
BoutonM. E.SunsayC. (2001). Contextual control of appetitive conditioning: Influence of a contextual stimulus generated by a partial reinforcement procedure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54B, 109–125.
11.
BrooksD. C.PalmatierM. I.GarcíaE. O.JohnsonJ. L. (1999). An extinction cue reduces spontaneous recovery of a conditioned taste aversion.Animal Learning & Behavior27, 77–88.
12.
CapaldiE. J. (1967). A sequential hypothesis of instrumental learning.SpenceK. W.SpenceJ. T.The psychology of learning and motivationNew York: Academic Press1, 67–156.
13.
CapaldiE. J. (1994). The sequential view: From rapidly fading stimulus traces to the organization of memory and the abstract concept of number.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review1, 156–181.
14.
DarbyR. J.PearceJ. (1995). Effects of context on responding during a compound stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes21, 143–154.
15.
García-GutiérrezA.RosasJ. M. (2003a). Context change as the mechanism of reinstatement in causal learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes29, 292–310.
16.
García-GutiérrezA.RosasJ. M. (2003b). Empirical and theoretical implications of additivity between renewal and reinstatement after interference in human causal learning.Behavioural Processes63, 21–31.
17.
García-GutiérrezA.RosasJ. M. (2003c). The role of number of cues on retroactive interference in human predictive learning.Psicológica24, 271–287.
18.
HallG.HoneyR. C. (1989). Contextual effects in conditioning, latent inhibition, and habituation: Associative and retrieval functions of contextual cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes15, 232–241.
19.
HallG.HoneyR. C. (1990). Context-specific conditioning in the conditioned-emotional-response procedure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes16, 271–278.
20.
KayeH.PearceJ. M. (1984). The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes10, 90–109.
21.
MurphyR. A.BakerA. G.FouquetN. (2001). Relative validity of contextual and discrete cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes27, 137–152.
22.
NelsonJ. B. (2002). Context specificity of excitation and inhibition in ambiguous stimuli.Learning and Motivation33, 284–310.
23.
NelsonJ. B.Callejas-AguileraJ. E. (2007). The role of interference produced by conflicting associations in contextual control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes33, 314–326.
24.
Paredes-OlayC.RosasJ. M. (1999). Within-subjects extinction and renewal in predictive judgments.Psicológica20, 195–210.
25.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review87, 532–552.
26.
PearceJ. M.RedheadE. S.AydinA. (1997). Partial reinforcement in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning with rats.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology50B, 273–294.
27.
PeckC. A.BoutonM. E. (1990). Context and performance in aversive-to-appetitive and appetitive-to-aversive transfer.Learning and Motivation21, 1–31.
28.
PineñoO.MatuteH. (2000). Interference in human predictive learning when associations share a common element.International Journal of Comparative Psychology13, 16–33.
29.
PineñoO.MillerR. R. (2004). Signalling a change in cue–outcome relations in human associative learning.Learning & Behavior32, 360–375.
30.
Ramos-álvarezM. M.CatenaA. (2005). The dissociation between the recall of stimulus frequencies and the judgment of contingency allows the placement of the competition effect in the final causal processing stages.Psicológica26, 293–303.
31.
RosasJ. M.BoutonM. E. (1998). Context change and retention interval have additive, rather than interactive, effects after taste aversion extinction.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review5, 79–83.
32.
RosasJ. M.Callejas-AguileraJ. E. (2006). Context switch effect on acquisition and extinction in human predictive learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition32, 461–474.
33.
RosasJ. M.Callejas-AguileraJ. E. (2007). Acquisition of a conditioned taste aversion becomes context dependent when it is learned alter extinction.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 9–15.
34.
RosasJ. M.Callejas-AguileraJ. E.Ramos-álvarezM. M.AbadM. J. F. (2006a). Revision of retrieval theory of forgetting: What does make information context-specific?.International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy6, 147–166.
35.
RosasJ. M.García-GutiérrezA.Callejas-AguileraJ. E. (2006b). Effects of context change upon retrieval of first and second-learned information in human predictive learning.Psicológica27, 35–56.
36.
RosasJ. M.VilaN. J.LugoM.LópezL. (2001). Combined effect of context change and retention interval upon interference in causality judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes27, 153–164.
37.
VadilloM. A.VegasS.MatuteH. (2004). Frequency of judgment as a context-like determinant of predictive judgments.Memory and Cognition32, 1065–1075.
38.
VilaN. J.RosasJ. M. (2001). Reinstatement of acquisition performance by presentation of the outcome after extinction in causality judgments.Behavioural Processes56, 147–154.
