Results 1 -
3 of
3
The psychophysics of contingency assessment
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
, 2008
"... The authors previously described a procedure that permits rapid, multiple within-participant evaluations ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The authors previously described a procedure that permits rapid, multiple within-participant evaluations
Cue interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trials procedure
- Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology
, 2009
"... The authors previously described a procedure that permits rapid, multiple within-participant assessments of the contingency between a cue and an outcome (the “streamed-trial ” procedure, Crump, Hannah, Allan, & Hord, 2007). In the present experiments, the authors modified this procedure to investig ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The authors previously described a procedure that permits rapid, multiple within-participant assessments of the contingency between a cue and an outcome (the “streamed-trial ” procedure, Crump, Hannah, Allan, & Hord, 2007). In the present experiments, the authors modified this procedure to investigate cue-interaction effects, replicating conventional findings in both the one- and two-phase blocking paradigms. The authors show that the streamed-trial procedure is not restricted to the geometric forms used as cues and outcomes by Crump et al., and that it can incorporate the conventional allergy stimuli, where food is the cue and an allergic reaction is the outcome. The authors discuss the value of the streamed-trial procedure as a method for advancing our theoretical understanding of cue-interaction effects.
R579B Causal Discounting 1 Running Head: CAUSAL DISCOUNTING Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias
"... People use information about the covariation between a putative cause and an outcome to determine if a causal relationship obtains. When there are two candidate causes and one is more strongly related to the effect than the other, the influence of the second is underestimated. This phenomenon is cal ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
People use information about the covariation between a putative cause and an outcome to determine if a causal relationship obtains. When there are two candidate causes and one is more strongly related to the effect than the other, the influence of the second is underestimated. This phenomenon is called causal discounting. In two studies, we adapted paradigms for studying causal learning to apply signal detection analysis to this phenomenon. We investigated whether the presence of a stronger alternative makes the task more difficult (indexed by differences in d’), or if people change the standard by which they assess causality (measured by β). Our results indicate the effect is due to bias. R579B Causal Discounting 3 Humans can use knowledge of covariation to predict events and to infer their underlying causes (Cheng, 1997). Although research has demonstrated a number of systematic phenomena in covariation and causal judgment, it is unclear whether these effects occur during the learning or decision process. Here we use signal detection theory (SDT) to tease apart these alternatives for one phenomenon: causal discounting. Discounting is a cue interaction effect, in which someone judges a moderately effective

