Three experiments (n = 81, n = 81, n = 82, respectively) explored how temporal contiguity influences Action-Outcome learning, assessing whether an intervening signal competed, facilitated, or had no effect on performance and causal attribution in undergraduate participants. Across experiments, we observed competition and facilitation as a function of the temporal contiguity between Action and Outcome. When there was a strong temporal relationship between Action and Outcome, the signal competed with the action, hindering instrumental performance but not causal attribution (Experiments 1 and 3). However, with weak temporal contiguity, the same signal facilitated both instrumental performance and causal attribution (Experiments 1 and 2). Finally, the physical intensity of the signal determined the magnitude of competition. As anticipated by associative learning models, a more salient signal attenuated to a greater extent instrumental performance (Experiment 3). These results are discussed by reference to a recent adaptation of the configural theory of learning.

When multiple cues are associated with the same outcome, organisms tend to select between the cues, with one revealing greater behavioral control at the expense of the others (i.e., cue competition). However, non-human and human studies have not always observed this competition, creating a puzzling scenario in which the interaction between cues can result in competition, no interaction, or facilitation as a function of several learning parameters. In five experiments, we assessed whether temporal contiguity and overshadowing effects are reliably observed in the streamed-trial procedure, and whether there was an interaction between them. We anticipated that weakening temporal contiguity (ranging from 500 to 1,000 ms) should attenuate competition. Using within-subject designs, participants experienced independent series of rapid streams in which they had to learn the relationship between visual cues (presented either alone or with another cue) and an outcome, with the cue-outcome pairings being presented with either a delay or trace relationship. Across experiments, we observed overshadowing (Experiments 1, 2, 4, and 5) and temporal contiguity effects (Experiments 2, 3, and 4). Despite the frequent occurrence of both effects, we did not find that trace conditioning abolished competition between cues. Overall, these results suggest that the extent to which contiguity determines cue interactions depends on multiple variables, some of which we address in the General discussion.