Contingency judgements on the fly

Crump, Matthew J. C.; Hannah, Samuel D.; Allan, Lorraine G.; Hord, Lauren K.

doi:10.1080/17470210701257685

Cited by 30 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, participants' responses on each trial can be objectively correct or incorrect (i.e., hits and false alarms). Crump, Hannah, Allan, and Hord (2007) have validated the streamed-trial method by replicating standard phenomena of contingency learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias

Laux

Goedert

Markman

2010

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People use information about the covariation between a putative cause and an outcome to determine whether a causal relationship obtains. When there are two candidate causes and one is more strongly related to the effect than is the other, the influence of the second is underestimated. This phenomenon is called causal discounting. In two experiments, we adapted paradigms for studying causal learning in order to apply signal detection analysis to this phenomenon. We investigated whether the presence of a stronger alternative makes the task more difficult (indexed by differences in d ) or whether people change the standard by which they assess causality (measured by ). Our results indicate that the effect is due to bias.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias

Laux

Goedert

Markman

2010

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The procedure elicits systematic biasing of contingency ratings by outcome frequency (Crump et al, 2007), and cue interaction effects as found in one-phase blocking and two-phase blocking ) tasks, including both forward and backward blocking.…”

Section: Signal Detection Theory and The Streamed-trial Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crump's development of the streamed-trial procedure (Crump et al, 2007) performs such a transformation by presenting cue and outcome simultaneously and rapidly (100 ms). Figure 1 gives schematics for streamed trials in both single-cue (panel A) and one-phase blocking (panel B) paradigms.…”

Section: Signal Detection Theory and The Streamed-trial Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the next sections, we will outline how signal detection theory has been applied by Siegel et al (2009) to the study of cue interaction effects by blending a novel technique, Crump's streamed-trial procedure (Crump, Hannah, Allan &, Hord 2007), with an old psychophysical technique, the method of constant stimuli. This merging of methods produces results consistent with a postacquisition account of cue interaction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The criterion-calibration model of cue interaction in contingency judgments

Hannah

Allan

2011

Learn Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Siegel, Allan, Hannah, and Crump (2009) demonstrated that cue interaction effects in human contingency judgments reflect processing that occurs after the acquisition of information. This finding is in conflict with a broad class of theories. We present a new postacquisition model, the criterion-calibration model, that describes cue interaction effects as involving shifts in a report criterion. The model accounts for the Siegel et al. data and outperforms the only other postacquisition model of cue interaction, Stout and Miller's (2007) SOCR model. We present new data from an experiment designed to evaluate a prediction of the two models regarding reciprocal cue interaction effects. The new data provide further support for the criterion-calibration model.

show abstract

“…At a given trial, the CS and the US can appear together, the CS can appear alone, the US can appear alone, or neither of them may be present. We call the frequencies of each of these possible combinations a, b, c, and d (see Table 1, e.g., Crump, Hannah, Allan, & Hord, 2007). Using the frequencies of each type of trial, the conditional probabilities of the US given the CS (p 1 ), and of the US given the absence of the CS (p 2 ), can be calculated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A test of Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) prediction of nonlinear effects in contingency learning

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to most theories, in a simple contingency learning situation, excitatory learning occurs when the probability of the unconditioned stimulus in the presence of the conditioned stimulus (p 1 ) is higher than the probability of the unconditioned stimulus in the absence of the conditioned stimulus (p 2 ). In Rescorla and Wagner's (1972) model, this prediction varies, depending on the parameters used. In the following experiments, we evaluated whether the difference between p 1 and p 2 that is required to produce excitatory conditioning is the same, independent of the specific value of p 1 , or whether this difference varies proportionally to p 1 's value. To do so, an appetitive procedure of Pavlovian conditioning with rats was used. In four experiments, we compared different levels of contingency (low, medium and high) and found that the difference between p 1 and p 2 that is required to produce excitatory conditioning increases when the value of p 1 is higher. The possibility of analyzing contingency learning as a discrimination between p 1 and p 2 is also discussed.

show abstract

Contingency judgements on the fly

Cited by 30 publications

References 19 publications

Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias

Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias

The criterion-calibration model of cue interaction in contingency judgments

A test of Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) prediction of nonlinear effects in contingency learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About