Cue interaction and judgments of causality: Contributions of causal and associative processes

Tangen, Jason M. and Allan, Lorraine G. (2004) Cue interaction and judgments of causality: Contributions of causal and associative processes. Memory and Cognition, 32 1: 107-124. doi:10.3758/BF03195824

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
Cue_interaction_judgement.pdf Cue_interaction_judgement.pdf application/pdf 973.18KB 557

Author Tangen, Jason M.
Allan, Lorraine G.
Title Cue interaction and judgments of causality: Contributions of causal and associative processes
Journal name Memory and Cognition   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0090-502X
1532-5946
Publication date 2004-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.3758/BF03195824
Open Access Status File (Author Post-print)
Volume 32
Issue 1
Start page 107
End page 124
Total pages 18
Place of publication Austin
Publisher Psychonomic Society Publications
Language eng
Subject 1702 Cognitive Sciences
1701 Psychology
Abstract In four experiments, the predictions made by causal model theory and the Rescorla-Wagner model were tested by using a cue interaction paradigm that measures the relative response to a given event based on the influence or salience of an alternative event. Experiments 1 and 2 uncorrelated two variables that have typically been confounded in the literature (causal order and the number of cues and outcomes) and demonstrated that overall contingency judgments are influenced by the causal structure of the events. Experiment 3 showed that trial-by-trial prediction responses, a second measure of causal assessment, were not influenced by the causal structure of the described events. Experiment 4 revealed that participants became less sensitive to the influence of the causal structure in both their ratings and their predictions as trials progressed. Thus, two experiments provided evidence for high-level (causal reasoning) processes, and two experiments provided evidence for low-level (associative) processes. We argue that both factors influence causal assessment, depending on what is being asked about the events and participants' experience with those events.
Keyword Psychology, Experimental
Contingency Judgments
Competition
Accounts
Order
Selection
Q-Index Code C1

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
School of Psychology Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 24 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 17 Oct 2007, 12:46:32 EST