Title: Contrasting cue-density effects in causal and prediction judgments
Authors: Vadillo, Miguel A. ×
Musca, Serban C.
Blanco, Fernando
Matute, Helena #
Issue Date: 2011
Publisher: Psychonomic Society
Series Title: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review vol:18 pages:110-115
Abstract: Many theories of contingency learning assume (either explicitly or implicitly) that predicting whether an outcome will occur should be easier than making a causal judgment. Previous research suggests that outcome predictions would depart from normatively standards less often than causal judgments, which is consistent with the idea that the latter are based on more numerous and complex processes. However, only indirect evidence exists for this view. The experiment presented here specifically addresses this issue by allowing for a fair comparison of causal judgments and outcome predictions, both collected at the same stage with identical rating scales. Cue density, a parameter known to affect judgments, is manipulated in a contingency learning paradigm. The results show that, if anything, the cuedensity bias is stronger in outcome predictions than in causal judgments. These results
contradict key assumptions of many influential theories of contingency learning.
ISSN: 1069-9384
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: IT
Appears in Collections:Centre for Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology
× corresponding author
# (joint) last author

Files in This Item:
File Description Status SizeFormat
VadilloMuscaBlancoMatute2011.pdfMain article Published 143KbAdobe PDFView/Open


All items in Lirias are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

© Web of science