Surprise and change: Variations in the strength of present and absent cues in causal learning

Abstract

It is said that "absence makes the heart grow fonder." But, when and why does an absent event become salient to the heart or to the brain? An absent event may become salient when its nonoccurrence is surprising. Van Hamme and Wasserman (1994) found that a nonpresented but expected stimulus can actually change its associative status-and in the opposite direction from a presented stimulus. Associative models like that of Rescorla and Wagner (1972) focus only on presented cues; so, they cannot explain this result. However, absent cues can be permitted to change their value by assigning different learning parameters to present and absent cues. Van Hamme and Wasserman revised the RescorlaWagner model so that the α parameter is positive for present cues, but negative for absent cues; now, changes in the associative strength of absent cues move in the opposite direction as presented ones. This revised Rescorla-Wagner model can thus explain such otherwise vexing empirical findings as backward blocking, recovery from overshadowing, and backward conditioned inhibition. Moreover, the revised model predicts new effects. For example, explicit information about the absence of nonpresented cues should increase their salience (that is, their negative α value should be larger), leading to stronger associative changes than when no explicit mention is made of cue absence. Support for this prediction is detailed in a new causal judgment experiment in which participants rated the effectiveness of different foods' triggering a patient's allergic reaction. Overall, these and other findings encourage us to view human causal learning from an associative perspective.

Gamelike features might not improve data

“…For instance, explicit categorization tasks can be presented as "diagnoses" (Castro & Wasserman, 2007;Wasserman & Castro, 2005), and implicit categorization tasks can be presented as the detection of "secret code words" embedded in artificial grammars (Sallas, Mathews, Lane, & Sun, 2007). Causal reasoning has been presented as a scientist uncovering the workings of a "black box" with light rays and atoms (Johnson & Krems, 2001), or using electrical circuits (Johnson & Mayer, 2010), or many other back stories (Dixon & Banghert, 2004;Dixon & Dohn, 2003;Ozubko & Joordens, 2008;Stephen, Boncoddo, Magnuson, & Dixon, 2009).…”

Cultural Differences in Revaluative Attributions

“…In total, 395 participants were recruited in Studies 1 and 2, and the pattern of the cultural differences in revaluative attribution was found in both studies, suggesting that this finding is reliable. Although the present studies used only a single domain (allergies), dozens of published reports examining attibution effects used this same type of allergy task (attributing allergic reaction to food substances; for example, Baetu et al, 2005;Van Hamme & Wasserman, 1994;Wasserman & Berglan, 1998;Wasserman & Castro, 2005), but as mentioned below, one important aim for future work is to explore these findings in other domains. The current study makes two distinct contributions to understanding cultural differences in attribution processes.…”

“…Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire first introduced an imaginary scenario that instructed participants to imagine themselves as allergists, and their job was to determine which food(s) produce allergic reactions (e.g., Baetu et al, 2005;Van Hamme & Wasserman, 1994;Wasserman & Berglan, 1998;Wasserman & Castro, 2005). Tasks were embedded in a story with an assumed patient making them potentially more realistic and vivid.…”

“…In Study 1, we tested the cultural differences in attribution using food allergy scenarios (e.g., Baetu et al, 2005;Van Hamme & Wasserman, 1994;Wasserman & Berglan, 1998;Wasserman & Castro, 2005). In Study 2, we sought to replicate our findings from Study 1, and added certain control conditions.…”

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

“…The first of these tests was the recognition test used by Wasserman and Berglan (1998;see also Aitken et al, 2001;Melchers et al, 2004Melchers et al, , 2006Wasserman & Castro, 2005). In this test, the participants were asked to identify pairs of cues that they had seen during the first learning phase among other distractor cue compounds.…”