Resistance to instructed reversal of the learned predictiveness effect

Abstract

The learned predictiveness effect is a widely observed bias towards previously predictive cues in novel situations. Although the effect is generally attributed to an automatic attentional shift, it has recently been explained as the product of controlled inferences about the predictive value of cues. This view is supported by the susceptibility of learned predictiveness to instruction manipulation. However, recent research has shown conflicting results. Three experiments investigated the parameters of the instructed reversal effect in a human causal learning task, to determine the relative contribution of automatic and controlled attention processes. Experiment 1 showed that reversal instructions abolished, but did not reverse, the learned predictiveness effect, although length of initial training had no effect on the extent to which predictive cues subsequently captured attention. Experiment 2 explored whether particular causal scenarios lend themselves more readily to instructed reversal, but still failed to establish a significant reversal effect. Experiment 3 demonstrated a significant reversal effect when nonpredictive cues were explicitly and individually identified as the causes of outcomes. However, this effect was considerably weaker than the learned predictiveness effect when predictive cues were identified in the same way. Taken together, the results are inconsistent with a purely controlled account of learned predictiveness and provide support for dual-process theories of learning and attention.

Learned predictiveness acquired through experience prevails over the influence of conflicting verbal instructions in rapid selective attention

“…In line with previous evidence [10, 13, 14], we found that participants’ learning of stimulus-outcome relationships during Phase 2 was influenced by instructions regarding relevance: Participants learned more, in general, about stimuli instructed as relevant than those that were not instructed. That said, the influence of instructions on learning was relatively slight, and was not sufficient to overcome the influence of experienced predictiveness on learning.…”

“…The design of our study was conceptually similar to that of Mitchell et al [10] in that it compared the influence of training versus instruction on predictiveness-related attentional biases. Our study departed from the procedure of Mitchell et al by using a within-subjects manipulation of verbal instructions, in order to increase the sensitivity of the experiment (a similar approach was used in Don & Livesey’s, Experiment 3 [13], and in Shone et al’s Experiment 2 [14]). Accordingly, after Phase 1, participants were informed that four specific stimuli would be the most relevant to learn about during Phase 2.…”

“…Mitchell et al argued that their data suggested that attentional processes based on selection history, such as those envisaged by associative learning theories (e.g., [11, 12]), were unlikely to play any role in the effect of learned predictiveness on selective attention. This is because such theories would predict the prioritization, during Phase 2, of stimuli that had previously been experienced as predictive in Phase 1, regardless of verbal instructions (but see [13, 14], for conflicting evidence – an issue which we take up again in the General Discussion).…”

Three Ways That Non-associative Knowledge May Affect Associative Learning Processes

“…That is, more was learned about previously non-predictive cues than previously predictive cues in Phase 2. Subsequent studies have partially replicated this sensitivity to instructions, though have typically found much weaker instructed reversal effects accompanied by a continued influence of biases established in Phase 1, despite clear evidence that the participants have read and understood the instructions (Don and Livesey, 2015; Shone et al, 2015). While Mitchell et al (2012) favored an explanation purely based on conscious reasoning processes, where participants deliberately attend to the cues they believe are important, a viable alternative is that attentional processes are brought under conscious control and thus let non-associative knowledge influence the course of subsequent learning.…”

“…Work on the learned predictiveness effect clearly demonstrates an effect of instructed attention on selective learning (Mitchell et al, 2012; Don and Livesey, 2015; Shone et al, 2015). The learned predictiveness effect is a widely observed learning bias toward previously predictive cues in novel situations (see Le Pelley et al, 2016 for a recent review).…”