Selective attribution and the judgment of causality

Shanks, David R.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(86)90001-9

Cited by 34 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both the neutral comparison cue and the context cue were rated identically, as was predicted by the Rescorla-Wagner model. Some recent results reported by Shanks (1986Shanks ( , 1989) are consistent with these findings as well. In one study using the tank video game described in the introduction, Shanks gave two groups of subjects experience with a random contingency between a predictor and the outcome.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Cue interaction in human contingency judgment

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most studies of human contingency judgment have been based on the assumption that frequency information about one predictor is assessed in isolation of information about other predictors. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the judged predictive strength of one cue is influenced by the predictive strengths of other copresent cues. Two experiments demonstrate that stimuli with the same outcome contingencies may nonetheless have different predictive strengths as the result of cue interaction. The first experiment, in which a within-subject design was used, provides a demonstration of blocking. A stimulus presented in compound with a strong predictor was rated as less predictive than another stimulus that was presented in compound with a nonpredictive cue. In the second experiment, cue interactions in conditioned inhibition were examined. A stimulus gained negative predictive strength as the result of compound presentations with a positive predictor when the outcome was not presented. This negative predictor was compared with an otherwise analogous stimulus that was not presented in compound with a positive predictor. These results support the use of animal-conditioning models as accounts of human contingency learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Cue interaction in human contingency judgment

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This experiment used the same design as was used in two previous experiments (Shanks, 1986, Experiments 3 and 4), where it was foundthat a signaldid increasejudgments, as the associative analysis predicts. However, those experiments useda procedure very different from the freeoperant procedure that has been used in most recent causalityjudgment experiments, includingthose of Wassermanand his colleagues.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selectional processes in causality judgment

Shanks

1989

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The most common variant of the contingency judgement task is the discrete-trials procedure (e.g., Allan & Jenkins, 1983;Dickinson, Shanks, & Evenden, 1984;Shanks, 1985Shanks, , 1986. Here, each trial consists of one presentation of a cue event (C or C), followed by an outcome event (O or O).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingency judgements on the fly

Crump

Hannah

Allan

et al. 2007

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research was conducted to establish the validity of a novel procedure for measuring human contingency judgements aimed at shortening the length of conventional procedures. Cues and outcomes were simple geometric shapes that were presented in a rapid streaming fashion, reducing the length of a block of trials from several minutes to a few seconds. We establish the reliability of the procedure by replicating two central findings in the contingency judgement literature, and we elaborate on the importance of this method for future research.

show abstract

Selective attribution and the judgment of causality

Cited by 34 publications

References 36 publications

Cue interaction in human contingency judgment

Cue interaction in human contingency judgment

Selectional processes in causality judgment

Contingency judgements on the fly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About