Cue Competition in Causality Judgments: The Role of Nonpresentation of Compound Stimulus Elements

• Published in: Learning and motivation Vol. 25; no. 2; pp. 127 - 151
• Main Authors: Van Hamme, Linda J., Wasserman, Edward A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: San Diego, CA Elsevier Inc 01.05.1994; Elsevier; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Allergies; Behavior; Biological and medical sciences; Cognition & reasoning; Food; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Human; Learning; Learning. Memory; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Social research; Learning; Human; Acquisition process; Causality; Experimental study; Classical conditioning; Judgment; Response stimulus relation
• ISSN: 0023-9690; 1095-9122
• DOI: 10.1006/lmot.1994.1008

College students rated the causal efficacy of Elements X, A, and B of food compounds AX and BX in producing the allergic reaction of a hypothetical patient. The results of a 16-day allergy test were presented to subjects in a serial, trial-by-trial manner. The response format used was a running estimate, in which subjects were asked to rate all of the three foods after each of the 16 trials. Ratings of distinctive Elements A and B diverged and ratings of common Element X decreased as the difference in the correlation of AX and BX with the occurrence and nonoccurrence of the allergic reaction increased. These human causal judgments closely correspond with stimulus selection effects observed in the conditioned responses of animals in associative learning studies. The experiment also directly demonstrated the fact that significant changes in the causal ratings of a stimulus occur on trials in which the cue is not presented. Associative theories such as that of Rescorla and Wagner (1972) predict changes in associative strength only for those stimulus elements that are presented on a particular trial. A modification of the Rescorla-Wagner model is described that correctly predicts immediate changes in the associative strengths of all relevant cues on each trial—whether presented or not.