Blocking in human causal learning is affected by outcome assumptions manipulated through causal structure (original) (raw)

Abstract

Additivity-related assumptions have been proven to modulate blocking in human causal learning. Typically, these assumptions are manipulated by means of pretraining phases (including exposure to different outcome magnitudes), or through explicit instructions. In two experiments, we used a different approach that involved neither pretraining nor instructional manipulations. Instead, we manipulated the causal structure in which the cues were embedded, thereby appealing directly to the participants' prior knowledge about causal relations and how causes would add up to yield stronger outcomes. Specifically, in our "different-system" condition, the participants should assume that the outcomes would add up, whereas in our "same-system" condition, a ceiling effect would prevent such an assumption. Consistent with our predictions, Experiment 1 showed that, when two cues from separate causal systems were combined, the participants did expect a stronger outcome on compound trials, and blocking was found, whereas when the cues belonged to the same causal system, the participants did not expect a stronger outcome on compound trials, and blocking was not observed. The results were partially replicated in Experiment 2, in which this pattern was found when the cues were tested for the second time. This evidence supports the claim that prior knowledge about the nature of causal relations can affect human causal learning. In addition, the fact that we did not manipulate causal assumptions through pretraining renders the results hard to account for with associative theories of learning.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (26)

  1. Arcediano, F., Matute, H., & Miller, R. R. (1997). Blocking of Pavlovian conditioning in humans. Learning and Motivation, 28, 188-199.
  2. Baetu, I., & Baker, A. G. (2012). Are preventive and generative causal reasoning symmetrical? Extinction and competition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1675-1698.
  3. Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., Pineño, O., & Miller, R. R. (2005). Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 238-249.
  4. Beckers, T., Miller, R. R., De Houwer, J., & Urushihara, K. (2006). Reasoning rats: Forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 92-102. doi:10.1037/ 0096-3445.135.1.92
  5. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405. doi:10.1037/0033- 295X.104.2.367
  6. De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., & Glautier, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 965-985.
  7. De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., & Vandorpe, S. (2005). Evidence for the role of higher order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena. Learning & Behavior, 33, 239-249. doi:10. 3758/BF03196066
  8. Glautier, S. (2002). Spatial separation of target and competitor cues enhances blocking of human causality judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 121-135.
  9. Guez, D., & Stevenson, G. (2011). Is reasoning in rats really unreason- able? Revisiting recent associative accounts. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 277. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00277
  10. Haselgrove, M. (2010). Reasoning rats or associative animals? A common-element analysis of the effects of additive and subadditive pretraining on blocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 296-306.
  11. Kamin, L. J. (1968). "Attention-like" processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9-31). Miami, FL: Miami University Press.
  12. Livesey, E. J., & Boakes, R. A. (2004). Outcome additivity, elemental processing and blocking in human causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 361-379. doi:10.1080/ 02724990444000005
  13. Lovibond, P. F., Been, S.-L., Mitchell, C. J., Bouton, M. E., & Frohardt, R. J. (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory & Cognition, 31, 133-142.
  14. Luque, D., Flores, A., & Vadillo, M. A. (2013). Revisiting the role of within-compound associations in cue-interaction phenomena. Learning & Behavior, 41, 61-76.
  15. Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The proposi- tional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183-198, disc. 198-246.
  16. Mitchell, C. J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2002). Backward and forward blocking in human electrodermal conditioning: Blocking requires an assump- tion of outcome additivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 311-329.
  17. Mitchell, C. J., Lovibond, P. F., & Condoleon, M. (2005). Evidence for deductive reasoning in blocking of causal judgments. Learning and Motivation, 36, 77-87.
  18. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physi- ological activity of the cerebral cortex (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
  19. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian condi- tioning: 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, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  20. Schmajuk, N. A., & Larrauri, J. (2008). Associative models can describe both causal learning and conditioning. Behavioural Processes, 77, 443-445.
  21. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contin- gency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1-21. doi:10.1080/14640748508402082
  22. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgement. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 229-261). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  23. Van Hamme, L. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127-151.
  24. Vandorpe, S., De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2007). Outcome maximality and additivity training also influence cue competition in causal learning when learning involves many cues and events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 356-368.
  25. Waldmann, M. R. (2007). Combining versus analyzing multiple causes: How domain assumptions and task context affect integration rules. Cognitive Science, 31, 233-256.
  26. Widrow, B., & Hoff, M. (1960). Adaptive switching circuits. In Western Electronic Show and Convention Record (Vol. 4, pp. 96-104). New York, NY: Institute of Radio Engineers.