» Articles » PMID: 18927027

Recency and Primacy in Causal Judgments: Effects of Probe Question and Context Switch on Latent Inhibition and Extinction

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2008 Oct 18
PMID 18927027
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Traditional associative models assume that associative weights are updated on a trial-by-trial basis. As a result, it is usually expected that responses based on these weights will tend to reflect the most recently presented contingencies. However, a number of studies of human causal judgments have shown primacy effects, wherein judgments obtained at the end of a series of trials are more strongly influenced by a contingency that was in force early in the sequence than by a contingency that was in force later in the sequence. The experiments described in this article replicated other work showing that requesting causal judgments during a sequence can reverse primacy and produce strong recency effects. Evidence was also obtained to suggest that primacy effects are produced by an interaction between latent inhibition and extinction processes and that requesting a judgment affects both of these processes.

Citing Articles

Learning about causal relations that change over time: primacy and recency over long timeframes in causal judgments and memory.

Rottman B, Zhang Y Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2025; 10(1):9.

PMID: 39982529 PMC: 11845336. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-025-00614-9.


Working memory and attention in choice.

Rustichini A, Domenech P, Civai C, DeYoung C PLoS One. 2023; 18(10):e0284127.

PMID: 37819949 PMC: 10566694. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284127.


Are all data created equal?--Exploring some boundary conditions for a lazy intuitive statistician.

Lindskog M, Winman A PLoS One. 2014; 9(5):e97686.

PMID: 24834913 PMC: 4023952. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097686.


Causal imprinting in causal structure learning.

Taylor E, Ahn W Cogn Psychol. 2012; 65(3):381-413.

PMID: 22859019 PMC: 3428960. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.07.001.


Expectations and interpretations during causal learning.

Luhmann C, Ahn W J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011; 37(3):568-87.

PMID: 21534705 PMC: 3491882. DOI: 10.1037/a0022970.

References
1.
Matute H, Vegas S . Flexible use of recent information in causal and predictive judgments. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(4):714-25. View

2.
Escobar M, Arcediano F, Miller R . Latent inhibition in human adults without masking. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003; 29(5):1028-40. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.1028. View

3.
Bouton M . Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychol Bull. 1993; 114(1):80-99. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.80. View

4.
Curley S, Young M, Kingry M, Yates J . Primacy effects in clinical judgments of contingency. Med Decis Making. 1988; 8(3):216-22. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800310. View

5.
Catena A, Maldonado A, Megias J, Frese B . Judgement frequency, belief revision, and serial processing of causal information. Q J Exp Psychol B. 2002; 55(3):267-81. DOI: 10.1080/02724990244000007. View