» Articles » PMID: 15078048

Cue Interaction and Judgments of Causality: Contributions of Causal and Associative Processes

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2004 Apr 14
PMID 15078048
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

The influence of the number of relevant causes on the processing of covariation information in causal reasoning.

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.


Associative and causal reasoning accounts of causal induction: symmetries and asymmetries in predictive and diagnostic inferences.

Lopez F, Cobos P, Cano A Mem Cognit. 2006; 33(8):1388-98.

PMID: 16615386 DOI: 10.3758/bf03193371.

References
1.
Cobos P, Lopez F, Cano A, Almaraz J, Shanks D . Mechanisms of predictive and diagnostic causal induction. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2002; 28(4):331-46. View

2.
Van Hamme L, Kao S, Wasserman E . Judging interevent relations: from cause to effect and from effect to cause. Mem Cognit. 1993; 21(6):802-8. DOI: 10.3758/bf03202747. View

3.
Waldmann M . Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: evidence from an overshadowing paradigm. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 8(3):600-8. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196196. View

4.
Waldmann M . Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000; 26(1):53-76. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.1.53. View

5.
Matute H, Arcediano F, Miller R . Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996; 22(1):182-96. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.22.1.182. View