Recent research on contingency judgment indicates that the judged predictiveness of a cue is dependent on the predictive strengths of other cues. Two classes of models correctly predict such cue interaction: associative models and statistical models. However, these models differ in their predictions about the effect of trial order on cue interaction. In five experiments reported here, college students viewed trial-by-trial data regarding several medical symptoms and a disease, judging the predictive strength of each symptom with respect to the disease. The results indicate that trial order influences the manner in which cues interact, but that neither the associative nor the statistical models can fully account for the data pattern. A possible variation of an associative account is discussed. The ability to detect predictive relationships among envi-ronmental events grants humans and other animals a distinct benefit. Therefore, the mechanisms underlying this ability are of considerable interest. Recent research with humans on judgments of contingencies has shed light on these mecha-nisms. It has suggested two classes of theoretical models that

Inducing causal relationships from observations is a classic problem in scientific inference, statistics, and machine learning. It is also a central part of human learning, and a task that people perform remarkably well given its notorious difficulties. People can learn causal structure in various settings, from diverse forms of data: observations of the co-occurrence frequencies between causes and effects, interactions between physical objects, or patterns of spatial or temporal coincidence. These different modes of learning are typically thought of as distinct psychological processes and are rarely studied together, but at heart they present the same inductive challenge—identifying the unobservable mechanisms that generate observable relations between variables, objects, or events, given only sparse and limited data. We present a computational-level analysis of this inductive problem and a framework for its solution, which allows us to model all these forms of causal learning in a common language. In this framework, causal induction is the product of domain-general statistical inference guided by domain-specific prior knowledge, in the form of an abstract causal theory. We identify 3 key aspects of abstract prior knowledge—the ontology of entities, properties, and relations that organizes a domain; the plausibility of specific causal relationships; and the functional form of those relationships—and show how they provide the constraints that people need to induce useful causal models from sparse data.

Similarities between Pavlovian conditioning in nonhumans and causal judgment by humans suggest that similar processes operate in these situations. Notably absent among the similarities is backward blocking (i.e., retrospective devaluation of a signal due to increased valuation of another signal that was present during training), which has been observed in causal judgment by humans but not in Pavlovian responding by animals. The authors used rats to determine if this difference arises from the target cue being biologically significant in the Pavlovian case but not in causal judgment. They used a sensory preconditioning procedure in Experiments 1 and 2, in which the target cue retained low biological significance during the treatment, and obtained backward blocking. The authors found in Experiment 3 that forward blocking also requires the target cue to be of low biological significance. Thus, low biological significance is a necessary condition for a stimulus to be vulnerable to blocking. In recent years, numerous researchers have remarked on the similarity of the conditions that encourage the acquisition of causal relationships in humans and those that foster

The rationality of human causal judgments has been the focus of a great deal of recent research. We argue against two major trends in this research, and for a quite different way of thinking about causal mechanisms and probabilistic data. Our position rejects a false dichotomy between "mechanistic " and "probabilistic " analyses of causal inference-- a dichotomy that both overlooks the nature of the evidence that supports the induction of mechanisms and misses some important probabilistic implications of mechanisms. This dichotomy has obscured an alternative conception of causal learning: for discrete events, a central adaptive task is to induce causal mechanisms in the environment from probabilistic data and prior knowledge. Viewed from this perspective, it is apparent that the probabilistic norms assumed in the human causal judgment literature often do not map onto the mechanisms generating the probabilities. Our alternative conception of causal judgment is more congruent with both scientific uses of the notion of causation and observed causal judgments of untutored reasoners. We illustrate some of the relevant variables under this conception, using a framework for causal representation now widely adopted in computer science and, increasingly, in statistics. We also review the formulation and evidence for a theory of human causal induction (Cheng, 1997) that adopts this alternative conception. 1. The Old Mechanism Approach A long and still popular tradition in the study of human causal reasoning insists on a dramatic bifurcation between "mechanistic " conceptions of causalGlymour & Cheng inference and "probabilistic " or "covariational " conceptions of this process (e.g., Ahn

There are many psychological tasks that involve the pairing of binary variables. The various tasks used often address different questions and are motivated by different theoretical issues and traditions. Upon closer examination, however, the tasks are remarkably similar in structure. In the present paper, we examine two such tasks, the contingency judgment task and the signal detection task, and we apply a signal detection analysis to contingency judgment data. We suggest that the signal detection analysis provides a novel interpretation of a well-established but poorly understood phenomenon of contingency judgments—the outcome-density effect. We must often make a decision even though the information we have is ambiguous or uncertain. One such situation is illustrated by a patient being treated by an allergist. The patient sometimes, but not always, develops hives after eating strawberries. Moreover, the patient sometimes develops hives even when strawberries are not eaten. Although the relationship between eating strawberries and developing hives is uncertain, the allergist must decide whether or not to recommend that the patient stop eating strawberries. Another type of ambiguous situation is illustrated by the task confronted by the radiologist. The radiologist must decide whether or not an X-ray indicates the presence of lung cancer. The signals seen in the X-ray are ambiguous, some consistent with lung cancer and others inconsistent with lung cancer. Even though the correct diagnosis is unclear, the radiologist must decide whether or not to recommend treatment. Despite the obvious similarities between the tasks, they have been treated quite differently. The allergy task has often been used by researchers interested in contingency assessment; that is, how humans judge that a cue (strawberry ingestion) imperfectly signals an outcome (see

Abstract not found

Many theories of category learning assume that learning is driven by a need to minimize classification error. When there is no classification error, therefore, learning of individual features should be negligible. The authors tested this hypothesis by conducting three category-learning experiments adapted from an associative learning blocking paradigm. Contrary to an error-driven account of learning, participants learned a wide range of information when they learned about categories, and blocking effects were difficult to obtain. Conversely, when participants learned to predict an outcome in a task with the same formal structure and materials, blocking effects were robust and followed the predictions of error-driven learning. The authors discuss their findings in relation to models of category learning and the usefulness of category knowledge in the environment.

models provided the best account of data generated in tasks that require human observers to judge the relationship between binary events. In the intervening years, new data have been reported that provide evidence for higherorder processes. Some have argued that these new data pose a serious threat to the viability of the associative account. The purpose of the present paper is to review this evidence and to assess the severity of this threat. In 1978, Brooks described the interaction between analytic and nonanalytic processes, and argued that “there are many factors that push a person’s strategy toward one end of the scale or another – that is, toward learning individuals by codings that are designed to retain the item’s individuality, or toward tracking the validity of characteristics of the stimulus

The authors previously described a procedure that permits rapid, multiple within-participant evaluations

Three experiments examined human processing of stimuli as predictors and causes. In Experiments 1A and 1B, two serial events that both preceded a third were assessed as predictors and as causes of the third event. Instructions successfully provided scenarios in which one of the serial (target) stimuli was viewed as a strong predictor but as a weak cause of the third event. In Experiment 2, participants ’ preexperimental knowledge was drawn upon in such a way that two simultaneous antecedent events were processed as predictors or causes, which strongly influenced the occurrence of overshadowing between the antecedent events. Although a tendency toward overshadowing was found between predictors, reliable overshadowing was observed only between causes, and then only when the test question was causal. Together with other evidence in the human learning literature, the present results suggest that predictive and causal learning obey similar laws, but there is a greater susceptibility to cue competition in causal than predictive attribution. This paper examines differences between predictive and causal learning in humans. Events often occur in our environment according to a consistent temporal distribution. Some events occur simultaneously (e.g., the sound and sight of water running out of the tap), whereas other events occur sequentially (e.g., hunger dissipates after the intake of food). When the events repeatedly take place following a sequential distribution in time, the first event (i.e., the antecedent event) can become a signal for the occurrence of the second event (i.e., the subsequent event). Learning to predict the occurrence of an event on O.P. was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Spanish