Abstract
We report three experiments in which we tested asymptotic and dynamic predictions of the Rescorla—Wagner (R—W) model and the asymptotic predictions of Cheng’s probabilistic contrast model (PCM) concerning judgments of causality when there are two possible causal candidates. We used a paradigm in which the presence of a causal candidate that is highly correlated with an effect influences judgments of a second, moderately correlated or uncorrelated cause. In Experiment 1, which involved a moderate outcome density, judgments of a moderately positive cause were attenuated when it was paired with either a perfect positive or perfect negative cause. This attenuation was robust over a large set of trials but was greater when the strong predictor was positive. In Experiment 2, in which there was a low overall density of outcomes, judgments of a moderately correlated positive cause were elevated when this cause was paired with a perfect negative causal candidate. This elevation was also quite robust over a large set of trials. In Experiment 3, estimates of the strength of a causal candidate that was uncorrelated with the outcome were reduced when it was paired with a perfect cause. The predictions of three theoretical models of causal judgments are considered. Both the R-W model and Cheng’s PCM accounted for some but not all aspects of the data. Pearce’s model of stimulus generalization accounts for a greater proportion of the data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,15, 147–149.
Baker, A. G., Berbrier, M., &Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1989). Judgments of a 2 × 2 contingency table: Sequential processing and the learning curve.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41B, 65–97.
Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., &Pan, M. (1993). Selective association and causality judgments: Presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 414–432.
Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., &Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1996). Associative and normative models of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding cause. In D. R. Shanks, K. Holyoak, & D. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 1–45). San Diego: Academic Press.
Chapman, G. B., &Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Cheng, P. W., &Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In J.-A. Meyer & H. Roitblat (Eds.),Comparative approaches to cognitive science (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cheng, P. W., &Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction.Psychological Review,99, 365–382.
Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. S., &Holyoak, K. J. (1996). A causal-power theory of focal sets. In D. R Shanks, K. Holyoak, & D. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 313–355). San Diego: Academic Press.
Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., &Evenden, J. (1984). Judgment of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 29–50.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Selective association and conditioning. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 42–64). Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University Press.
López, F. J., Shanks, D. R., Almaraz, J., &Fernández, P. (1998). Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 672–694.
Melz, E. R., Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., &Waldmann, M. R. (1993). Cue competition in human categorization: Contingency or the Rescorla—Wagner learning rule? Comment on Shanks (1991).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1398–1410.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Price, P. C., &Yates, F. (1993). Judgmental overshadowing: Further evidence of cue interaction in contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,21, 561–572.
Price, P. C., &Yates, F. (1995). Associative and rule-based accounts of cue interaction in contingency judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1639–1655.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Shanks, D. R. (1985). Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials.Memory & Cognition,13, 158–167.
Shanks, D. R. (1989). Selectional processes in causality judgment.Memory & Cognition,17, 27–34.
Shanks, D. R. (1991). Categorization by a connectionist network.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 433–443.
Shanks, D. R., López, F. J., Dickinson, A., &Darby, R. J. (1996). Distinguishing associative and probabilistic contrast theories of human contingency judgment. In D. R. Shanks, K. Holyoak, & D. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 229–261). San Diego: Academic Press.
Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Baker, A. G., &Mercier, P. (1994). Discounting in causality and covariation judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47B, 151–171.
Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., &Baker, A. G. (1996). Judging the contingency of a constant cause: Contrasting predictions from an associative and a statistical model. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.),Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 447–452). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R. A., Drew, S., &Baker, A. G. (1998). Judgments of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the PowerPC theory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51A, 65–84.
Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., Haberlandt, K., &Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 171–180.
Waldmann, M. R., &Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 222–236.
Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. J., &Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: The role of probability in judgments of response—outcome contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 174–188.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a National Sciences and Engineering (Canada) research grant to A.G.B. and an Economic and Social Research Council (U.K.) grant to F.V.-T.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baker, A.G., Vallée-Tourangeau, F. & Murphy, R.A. Asymptotic judgment of cause in a relative validity paradigm. Memory & Cognition 28, 466–479 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198561
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198561