Cue Interaction and Judgments of Causality: Contributions of Causal and Associative Processes
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
In four experiments, the predictions made by causal model theory and the Rescorla-Wagner model were tested by using a cue interaction paradigm that measures the relative response to a given event based on the influence or salience of an alternative event. Experiments 1 and 2 uncorrelated two variables that have typically been confounded in the literature (causal order and the number of cues and outcomes) and demonstrated that overall contingency judgments are influenced by the causal structure of the events. Experiment 3 showed that trial-by-trial prediction responses, a second measure of causal assessment, were not influenced by the causal structure of the described events. Experiment 4 revealed that participants became less sensitive to the influence of the causal structure in both their ratings and their predictions as trials progressed. Thus, two experiments provided evidence for high-level (causal reasoning) processes, and two experiments provided evidence for low-level (associative) processes. We argue that both factors influence causal assessment, depending on what is being asked about the events and participants' experience with those events.
Kim K, Markman A, Kim T Cogn Process. 2016; 17(4):399-413.
PMID: 27312597 DOI: 10.1007/s10339-016-0770-9.
An instance theory of associative learning.
Jamieson R, Crump M, Hannah S Learn Behav. 2011; 40(1):61-82.
PMID: 21913057 DOI: 10.3758/s13420-011-0046-2.
Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias.
Laux J, Goedert K, Markman A Psychon Bull Rev. 2010; 17(2):213-8.
PMID: 20382922 DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.213.
Feature-feature causal relations and statistical co-occurrences in object concepts.
McNorgan C, Kotack R, Meehan D, McRae K Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(3):418-31.
PMID: 17691142 PMC: 3269815. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193282.
Lopez F, Cobos P, Cano A Mem Cognit. 2006; 33(8):1388-98.
PMID: 16615386 DOI: 10.3758/bf03193371.