Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that people are sensitive to the degree of contingency between their actions and ensuing outcomes, but little is known about the way in which such contingency judgments develop as more and more information about the contingency is provided. Three experiments examined this issue in the context of a video game. In Experiment 1, it was found that contingency judgments follow growth functions: When the contingency was positive, judgments increased toward a positive asymptote, and when the contingency was negative, judgments decreased toward a negative asymptote. When the contingency was zero, judgments themselves remained close to zero but were biased by the overall frequency with which the outcome occurred. In Experiment 2, it was shown that the growth function was not the result of the anchoring of early judgments at the zero point. The bias in judgments when the contingency is zero was investigated in Experiment 3. The results are discussed in terms of rule-based analyses and contemporary theories of conditioning.
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.
Allan, L.G., &Jenkins, H.M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives.Canadian Journal of Psychology,34, 1–11.
Allan, L.G., &Jenkins, H.M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence.Learning and Motivation,14, 381–405.
Alloy, L.B., &Abramson, L.Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 441–485.
Alloy, L.B., &Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and anumals. The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information.Psychological Review,91, 112–149.
Dickinson, A. (1980)Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, A., Suanks, D. R., &Evenden, J. L. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution.Quarerly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 29–50.
Miller, R. G. (1966).Simultaneous statistical inference. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Phystological Psychology.66, 1–5.
Rescorla, R. A. (1969). Conditioned inhibition of fear resulting from negative CS-US contingencies.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,67, 504–509.
Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Informational variables in Pavlovian condition. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivatzon (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press.
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 11: Current theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science,185, 1124–1131.
Wasserman, E. A., Schatlosh, D. L., &Neunaber, D. J. (1983). Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures.Learning and Motivation,14, 406–432.
Witcher, E. S., &Ayres, J. J. B. (1980). Systematic manipulation of CS-US pairings in negative CS-US correlation procedures in rats.Animal Learning and Behavior,8, 67–74.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by a grant from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shanks, D.R. Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials. Memory & Cognition 13, 158–167 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197008
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197008