Revisiting the role of within-compound associations in cue-interaction phenomena

Abstract

Although it is thought that within-compound associations are necessary for the occurrence of both backward blocking and unovershadowing, it is not known whether this variable plays a similar role in mediating the two phenomena. Similarly, the roles of within-compound associations in forward blocking and in reduced overshadowing have not been tested independently. The present experiments evaluated how the strength of withincompound associations affects backward blocking, unovershadowing, forward blocking, and reduced overshadowing. Using an allergy task, the strength of within-compound associations was varied by taking advantage of the participants' prior knowledge of common and uncommon food pairings. Backward blocking and unovershadowing effects were present only when highly memorable compound cues were used. Moreover, the magnitudes of both retrospective revaluation effects were affected by the strength of withincompound associations. Forward blocking and reduced overshadowing effects were independent of withincompound associations. These results have important theoretical implications for causal learning research.Keywords Backward blocking . Blocking . Causal learning . Reduced overshadowing . Unovershadowing Learning causal relations from the environment allows us to both predict and control events that are relevant for survival. It is not surprising, therefore, that the specific mechanisms that underlie causal learning have been a subject of active research during the last few decades. A family of empirical phenomena, usually described as cue-interaction effects, has played a crucial role in the experimental study of causal

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

“…When asked to judge whether B causes the outcome, participants will often give a rating that is substantially lower than their rating for either C or D, even though all three cues have resulted in the outcome on an equal number of occasions. For example, if participants first experience that apples cause an allergic reaction in a Patient X and afterward that two different food combinations, one comprising apples (A) and beans (B) and one carrots (C) and dates (D), will both lead to an allergic reaction, they will rate beans as less likely to cause the allergic reaction on its own than carrots or dates (i.e., B < C or D, see for example, Luque et al, 2013). …”

Learning‐induced modulations of the stimulus‐preceding negativity

“…As is usual in cue-interaction experiments, there were two phases: a training phase and a test phase (e.g., Dickinson & Burke, 1996;Luque, Flores, & Vadillo, 2013). Only the training phase data were relevant and analyzed for this study.…”

The dark side of cognitive illusions: When an illusory belief interferes with the acquisition of evidence‐based knowledge

“…Nevertheless, what is clear given the present results is that the group who developed a high illusion about the ineffective Medicine A tended to assess the effective Medicine B as less effective than the group who developed a weaker illusion. Similar cue interaction effects have been clearly established in other causal learning research (Aitken et al ., ; Arcediano et al ., ; Dickinson et al ., ; Luque & Vadillo, ; Luque et al ., ; Morís et al ., ; Shanks, ). Moreover, cue interaction effects are beautifully predicted by current theories of learning (Rescorla & Wagner, ).…”

“…In the second case, when the previous belief is that A prevents the outcome from occurring, the detection of a causal relationship between the second cause B and the outcome will be facilitated (i.e., this particular case of cue interaction is generally known as superconditioning; Rescorla, 1971). Many cue interaction experiments, both with animals and humans, show that learning about the relationship between a potential cause and an outcome can result altered when the potential cause is presented in compound with another potential cause that has been previously associated either with the outcome or its absence (Aitken, Larkin, & Dickinson, 2000;Arcediano, Matute, Escobar, & Miller, 2005;Dickinson, Shanks, & Evenden, 1984;Kamin, 1968;Luque, Flores, & Vadillo, 2013;Luque & Vadillo, 2011;Mor ıs, Cobos, Luque, & L opez, 2014;Rescorla, 1971;Shanks, 1985).…”