Contingency judgments are conditionalized on the constancy of other causes

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bobbie Spellman
Keyword(s):  
Contingency Judgments

Learning Effects and Cell Information Use In Contingency Judgments

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irwin P. Levin ◽  
Shu-Fang Kao ◽  
Edward A. Wasserman
Keyword(s):  
Information Use ◽  
Learning Effects ◽  
Contingency Judgments

Effects of trial order on contingency judgments: A comparison of associative and probabilistic contrast accounts.

1998 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 672-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco J. López ◽  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Julián Almaraz ◽  
Pablo Fernández
Keyword(s):  
Contingency Judgments

Cue-interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trial procedure.

2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel D. Hannah ◽  
Matthew J. C. Crump ◽  
Lorraine G. Allan ◽  
Shepard Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Trial Procedure ◽  
Contingency Judgments

Acting as Intuitive Scientists: Contingency Judgments Are Made While Controlling for Alternative Potential Causes

1996 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 337-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Spellman
Keyword(s):  
Human Performance ◽  
Cue Integration ◽  
Contingency Analysis ◽  
Simpson’S Paradox ◽  
Simpson's Paradox ◽  
Multiple Causes ◽  
Contingency Judgments

In judging the efficacy of multiple causes of an effect, human performance has been found to deviate from the “normative”Δ P contingency rule However, in cases of multiple causes, that rule might not be normative, scientists and philosophers, for example, know that when judging a potential cause, one must control for all other potential causes. In an experiment in which they were shown trial-by-trial effects of two potential causes (which sometimes covaried), subjects used conditional rather than unconditional contingencies to rate the efficacy of the causes. A conditional contingency analysis may explain various “nonnormative” cue-integration effects (e.g., discounting) found in the literature and is relevant to how people unravel Simpson's paradox.

Strategy Changes in Human Contingency Judgments as a Function of Contingency Tables

1991 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsuneo Shimazaki ◽  
Yasuhiro Tsuda ◽  
Hiroshi Imada
Keyword(s):  
Contingency Tables ◽  
Strategy Changes ◽  
Contingency Judgments

Does Evaluative Learning Rely on the Perception of Contingency?

2011 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 391-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Kattner ◽  
Wolfgang Ellermeier
Keyword(s):  
Learning Task ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Propositional Knowledge ◽  
Contingency Learning ◽  
Subjective Contingency ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Objective Contingency ◽  
Contingency Judgments

An experiment is reported studying the impact of objective contingency and contingency judgments on cross-modal evaluative conditioning (EC). Both contingency judgments and evaluative responses were measured after a contingency learning task in which previously neutral sounds served as either weak or strong predictors of affective pictures. Experimental manipulations of contingency and US density were shown to affect contingency judgments. Stronger contingencies were perceived with high contingency and with low US density. The contingency learning task also produced a reliable EC effect. The magnitude of this effect was influenced by an interaction of statistical contingency and US density. Furthermore, the magnitude of EC was correlated with the subjective contingency judgments. Taken together, the results imply that propositional knowledge about the CS-US relationship, as reflected in contingency judgments, moderates evaluative learning. The data are discussed with respect to different accounts of EC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document