Three experiments investigated the way participants construct causal chains from experience with the individual links that make up those chains. Participants were presented with contingency information about the relationship between events A and B, as well as events B and C, using trial-by-trial presentations. The A-B and B-C contingencies could be positive, negative, or zero. Although participants had never experienced A and C together, A-C ratings were a multiplicative function of the A-B and B-C contingencies. These findings can be generated by an auto-associator using the delta rule. This explanation is also useful for understanding sensory preconditioning and second-order conditioning.

The relative validity effect (Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968) demonstrated that a strong cue or cause reduces responding to, or judgments of, a weaker cue or cause. We report two experiments with human subjects using relative validity preparations in which we investigate one- and two-cue competition effects. Previously, we investigated the effect using instrumental and Pavlovian conditioning preparations with rats. In the first experiment, we used a procedure analogous to the animal preparations. In the second experiment, we used a different probabilistic procedure. The results with humans and rats are very similar. In each species we find similar interference with processing the moderate predictor with one or with two strong competitors. These results are not well predicted by most associative models.

A strong positive predictor of an outcome modulates the causal judgments of a moderate predictor. To study the empirical basis of this modulation, we compared treatments with one and with two strong competing (i.e., modulating) causes. This allowed us to vary the frequency of outcome occurrences or effects paired with the predictors. We investigated causal competition between positive predictors (those signaling the occurrence of the outcome), between negative predictors (those signaling the absence of the outcome) and between predictors of opposite polarity (positive and negative). The results are consistent with a contrast rather than a reduced associative strength or conditional contingency account, because a strong predictor of opposite polarity enhances rather than reduces causal estimates of moderate predictors. In addition, we found competition effects when the strong predictor predicted fewer outcome occurrences than the moderate predictor, thus implying that cue competition is, at least sometimes, a consequence of contingency rather than total cue-outcome pairings.

The Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) was designed to measure motor sequence learning and is widely used in many fields in cognitive science and neuroscience. However, the common performance measures derived from SRTT—reaction time (RT) difference scores—may not provide valid measures of sequence learning. This is because RT-difference scores may be subject to floor effects and otherwise not sufficiently reflective of learning. A ratio RT measure might minimize floor effects. Furthermore, measures derived from predictive accuracy may provide a better assessment of sequence learning. Accordingly, we developed a Predictive Sequence Learning Task (PSLT) in which performance can be assessed via both RT and predictive accuracy. We compared performance of N = 99 adults on SRTT and PSLT in a within-subjects design and also measured fluid abilities. The RT-difference scores on both tasks were generally not related to fluid abilities, replicating previous findings. In contrast, a ratio RT measure on SRTT and PSLT and accuracy measures on PSLT were related to fluid abilities. The accuracy measures also indicated an age-related decline in performance on PSLT. The current patterns of results were thus inconsistent across different measures on the same tasks, and we demonstrate that this discrepancy is potentially due to floor effects on the RT difference scores. This may limit the potential of SRTT to measure sequence learning and we argue that PSLT accuracy measures could provide a more accurate reflection of learning ability.

No abstract