Contingency is used to prepare for outcomes: Implications for a functional analysis of learning

Abstract

It is generally assumed that the function of contingency learning is to predict the occurrence of important events in order to prepare for them. This assumption, however, has scarcely been tested. Moreover, the little evidence that is available suggests just the opposite result. People do not use contingency to prepare for outcomes, nor to predict their occurrence, although they do use it to infer the causal and predictive value of cues. By using both judgmental and behavioral data, we designed the present experiments as a further test for this assumption. The results show that-at least under certain conditions-people do use contingency to prepare for outcomes, even though they would still not use it to predict their occurrence. The functional and adaptive aspects of these results are discussed in the present article.

Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced

“…In addition to active vs. passive roles of participants, there are many other variants that can be introduced in this task and that have been shown to affect the participants’ estimations of causality. Examples include changing the wording of questions asked at the end of the experiment about the causal relationship ( Crocker, 1982 ; Vadillo et al, 2005 , 2011 ; Collins and Shanks, 2006 ; De Houwer et al, 2007 ; Blanco et al, 2010 ; Shou and Smithson, 2015 ), the order in which the different trial types are presented ( Langer and Roth, 1975 ; López et al, 1998 ), the frequency with which judgments are requested ( Collins and Shanks, 2002 ; Matute et al, 2002 ), the description of the relevant events as causes, predictors, or effects ( Waldmann and Holyoak, 1992 ; Cobos et al, 2002 ; Pineño et al, 2005 ), the temporal contiguity between the two events (e.g., Shanks et al, 1989 ; Wasserman, 1990 ; Lagnado and Sloman, 2006 ; Lagnado et al, 2007 ), and many other variables that fortunately are becoming well known. In the following sections, we will focus on the variables that seem to affect the illusion most critically in cases of null contingency.…”

Gamelike features might not improve data

“…For instance, participants learn to navigate through a three-dimensional space while interacting with "characters" later used for identification tests (Wade & Holt, 2005). Arcediano, Ortega, and Matute (1996) developed the "Martians" game to explore classical conditioning using Martians and explosions as stimuli (see also Baeyens et al, 2005;Blanco, Matute, & Vadillo, 2010;Franssen, Clarysse, Beckers, van Vooren, & Baeyens, 2010). Gamelike tasks have been used to study instrumental learning with stimuli presented as balloons that must be shot from the sky (Krageloh, Zapanta, Shepherd, & Landon, 2010), minefields to be navigated (Baker, Mercier, Vallee-Tourangeau, Frank, & Pan, 1993), or a host of similar examples (Lie, Harper, & Hunt, 2009;Molet, Jozefowiez, & Miller, 2010;Paredes-Olay, Abad, Gamez, & Rosas, 2002;Stokes & Balsam, 2001;Stokes & Harrison, 2002).…”

Outcome probability modulates anticipatory behavior to signals that are equally reliable

“…Behavioral experiments with human ( Blanco et al, 2010 ) and non-human animals (e.g., Hallam et al, 1992 ; Murphy & Baker, 2004 ; Rescorla, 1968 ) had already shown that preparatory behavior is influenced by the reliability of the signals or, in other words, by signal–outcome contingency. Those experiments had typically maintained P ( O | S ) constant, so that contingency between the signal and the outcome could be manipulated and its effect on behavior established.…”

“…Following Blanco et al’s (2010) experiment we used the Martians task ( Arcediano et al, 1996 ; Costa & Boakes, 2011 ; Franssen et al, 2010 ; Matute et al, 2007 ). This allows us to assess how P ( O | S ) affects the participants’ anticipatory behavior directly.…”

“…The only experiment that, as far as we know, has been conducted with humans using anticipatory behavior per se as the dependent variable was conducted by Blanco, Matute, and Vadillo (2010) . They reported that anticipatory behavior in humans was driven by contingency.…”