Five experiments involving human causal learning were conducted to compare the cue competition effects known as blocking and unovershadowing, in proactive and retroactive instantiations. Experiment 1 demonstrated reliable proactive blocking and unovershadowing but only retroactive unovershadowing. Experiment 2 replicated the same pattern and showed that the retroactive unovershadowing that was observed was interfered with by a secondary memory task that had no demonstrable effect on either proactive unovershadowing or blocking. Experiments 3a, 3b, and 3c demonstrated that retroactive unovershadowing was accompanied by an inflated memory effect not accompanying proactive unovershadowing. The differential pattern of proactive versus retroactive cue competition effects is discussed in relationship to amenable associative and inferential processing possibilities.
AitkenM. R. F., LarkinM. J. W., DickinsonA. (2001). Re-examination of the role of within-compound associations in the retrospective revaluation of causal judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 27–51. doi: 10.1080/02724990042000029
2.
BeckersT., VandorpeS., DebeysI., De HouwerJ. (2009). Three-year-old's retrospective revaluation in the blicket detector task: Backward blocking or recovery from overshadowing. Experimental Psychology, 56, 27–32. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.1.27
3.
CastroL., & WassermanE. A. (2007). Discrimination blocking: Acquisition versus performance deficits in human contingency learning. Learning & Behavior, 35, 149–162. doi: 10.3758/BF03193050
4.
ChapmanG. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 837–854.
5.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367
6.
ChengP. W., & NovickL. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 545–567. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.545
7.
ChengP. W., & NovickL. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365–382. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.365
8.
De HouwerJ., & BeckersT. (2003). Secondary task modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 345–357. doi: 10.1080/02724990244000296
9.
DickinsonA., & BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60–80. doi: 10.1080/713932614
10.
DickinsonA., ShanksD. R., & EvendenJ. (1984). Judgment of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29–50. doi: 10.1080/14640748408401502
11.
GluckM. A., & BowerG. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 225–244.
12.
HannahS. D., CrumpM. J. C., AllanL. G., & SiegelS. (2009). Cue-interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trial procedure. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 103–112. doi: 10.1037/a0013521
13.
HumeD. (1748 /1910). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Harvard Classics (Vol. 37). Cambridge, MA: P. F. Collier & Son.
14.
JenkinsH., & WardW. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 79, 1–17. doi: 10.1037/h0093874
15.
JohnsonM. K., RayeC. L., WangA. Y., & TaylorT. H. (1979). Fact and fantasy: The roles of accuracy and variability in confusing imaginations with perceptual experiences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 229–240.
16.
JohnsonM. K., TaylorT. H., & RayeC. L. (1977). Fact and fantasy: The effects of internally generated events on the apparent frequency of externally generated events. Memory & Cognition, 5, 116–122. doi: 10.3758/BF03209202
17.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
18.
KaminL. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In JonesM. R. (Ed.), Miami Symposium on the prediction of Behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–33). Miami: University of Miami Press.
19.
KaminL. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In CampbellB. A. & ChurchR. M. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.
20.
KaufmanM. A. & BollesR. C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 318–320. doi: 10.3758/BF03333639
21.
LarkinM. J. W., AitkenM. R. F., & DickinsonA. (1998). Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1331–1352.
22.
Le PelleyM. E., & McLarenI. P. L. (2001). Retrospective revaluation in humans: Learning or memory?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 311–352. doi: 10.1080/02724990143000072
23.
Le PelleyM. E., OakeshottS. M., & McLarenI. P. L. (2005). Blocking and unblocking in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal behavior Processes, 31, 56–70.
24.
LiuP., & LuhmannC. C. (2013). Evidence that a transient but cognitively demanding process underlies forward blocking. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 744–766. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.717952
25.
LovibondP. F., BeenS. L., MitchellC. J., BoutonM. E., & FrohardtR. (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory & Cognition, 31, 133–142. doi: 10.3758/BF03196088
26.
LudvigE. A., MirianM. S., SuttonR. S., & KehoeE. J. (2010). Associative learning from replayed experience. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of The Pavlovian Society, October 14–16, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
27.
LuhmannC. C., & AhnW. (2011). Expectations and interpretations during causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 568–587.
28.
LuqueD., FloresA., & VadilloM. A. (2013). Revisiting the role of within-compound associations in cue-interaction phenomena. Learning & Behavior, 41, 61–76. doi: 10.3758/s13420-012-0085-3
29.
LuqueD., & VadilloM. A. (2011). Backward versus forward blocking: Evidence for performance-based models of human contingency learning. Psychological Reports, 109, 1001–1016. doi: 10.2466/22.23.PR0.109.6.1001-1016
30.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298. doi: 10.1037/h0076778
31.
McCormackT., ButterfillS., HoerlC., & BurnsP. (2009). Cue competition effects and young children's causal and counterfactual inferences. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1563–1575. doi: 10.1037/a0017408
32.
MelchersK. G., LachnitH., & ShanksD. R. (2004). Within-compound associations in retrospective revaluation and in direct learning: A challenge for comparator theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 25–53. doi: 10.1080/02724990344000042
33.
MelchersK. G., LachnitH., & ShanksD. R. (2006). The comparator theory fails to account for the selective role of within-compound associations in cue-selection effects. Experimental Psychology, 53, 316–320. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.53.4.316
34.
MitchellC. J., De HouwerJ., & LovibondP. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183–198. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09000855
35.
MitchellC. J., KilledarA., & LovibondP. F. (2005). Inference-based retrospective revaluation in human causal judgments requires knowledge of within-compound relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 418–424.
36.
MitchellC. J., LovibondP. F., MinardE., & LavisY. (2006). Forward blocking in human learning sometime reflects the failure to encode a cue-outcome relationship. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 830–844. doi: 10.1080/17470210500242847
37.
PearceJ. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61–73. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.61
38.
PearceJ. M., & HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532
39.
RatcliffR. (1990). Connectionist models of recognition memory: Constraints imposed by learning and forgetting functions. Psychological Review, 97, 285–308. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.285
40.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non reinforcement. In BlackA. H. & ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
41.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/14640748508402082
42.
ShanksD. R., & DickinsonA. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 21. pp. 229–261). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43.
ShiffrinR. M. & SchneiderW. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
44.
SternbergD., & McClellandJ. L. (2009). When should we expect indirect effects in human contingency learning? InTaatgenN. A. & van RijnH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 206–211). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
45.
StoutS. C., & MillerR. R. (2007). Sometimes-competing retrieval (SOCR): A formalization of the comparator hypothesis. Psychological Review, 114, 759–783. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.759
46.
VadilloM. A., CastroL., MatuteH., & WassermanE. A. (2008). Backward blocking: The role of within- compound associations and interference between cues trained apart. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 61, 185–193. doi: 10.1080/17470210701557464
47.
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. doi: 10.1006/lmot.1994.1008
48.
VandorpeS., & De HouwerJ. (2005). A comparison of forward blocking and reduced overshadowing in human causal learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 945–949. doi: 10.3758/BF03196790
49.
VandorpeS., & De HouwerJ. (2006). A comparison of cue competition in a simple and a complex design. Acta Psychologica, 122, 234–246. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.11.003
50.
VandorpeS., De HouwerJ. & BeckersT. (2007). The role of memory for compounds in cue competition. Learning and Motivation, 38, 195–207. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2007.03.001
51.
WagnerA. R. (1969). Incidental stimuli and discrimination learning. In GilbertG. & SutherlandN. S. (Eds.), Animal discrimination learning (pp. 83–111). London: Academic Press.
52.
WagnerA. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In SpearN. E. & MillerR. R. (Eds.). Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53.
WaldmannM. R., & HolyoakK. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222–236. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.2.222
54.
WaldmannM. R., & WalkerJ. M. (2005). Competence and performance in causal learning. Learning & Behavior, 33, 211–229. doi: 10.3758/BF03196064
55.
WassermanE. A., & BerglanL. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgement: The role of within-compound associations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51B, 121–138.
56.
WassermanE. A., & CastroL. (2005). Surprise and change: variations in the strength of present and absent cues in causal learning. Learning & Behavior, 33, 131–146. doi: 10.3758/BF03196058
