A dual strategy account of individual differences in information processing in contingency judgments

Interpretation of ambiguous trials along with reasoning strategy is related to causal judgements in zero-contingency learning

“…Overall, these results show that the effect of reasoning strategy on judgements of efficacy is a combination of two tendencies: (1) the tendency of Statistical reasoners to evaluate ambiguous cues as indicating patient cured more often than Counterexample reasoners and (2) the tendency of Statistical reasoners to evaluate the same contingency information as indicating a higher level of treatment efficacy compared with Counterexample reasoners. This provides additional support to the idea that the dual strategy model provides a useful framework to study individual differences in contingency learning (Béghin et al, 2021;Béghin & Markovits, 2022).…”

“…Our basic prediction here was that even with a smaller number of cues to patient state, there would be a clear relation between the tendency to interpret ambiguous cues as indicating that the patient was cured and final judgements of efficacy. Now, previous studies have shown a clear relationship between strategy use and contingency judgements (Béghin et al, 2021;Béghin & Markovits, 2022). These show that, given the same profile of contingency information, Counterexample reasoners generate lower estimates of causal efficacy than Statistical reasoners.…”

“…Counterexample reasoners use a more focused representation of information that is treated by working memory–intensive processes, while Statistical reasoners use a more intuitive form of information activation and treatment. Previous results (Béghin et al, 2021; Béghin & Markovits, 2022) have indeed shown that reasoning strategy predicts clear differences in the way that contingency information is processed. However, these studies were conducted in classical contingency learning paradigms (i.e., using binary cause and effect).…”

“…Now, previous studies have shown a clear relationship between strategy use and contingency judgements (Béghin et al, 2021; Béghin & Markovits, 2022). These show that, given the same profile of contingency information, Counterexample reasoners generate lower estimates of causal efficacy than Statistical reasoners.…”

“…However, the dual strategy model has recently been shown to be a useful way of predicting individual differences in classical contingency learning paradigms. An initial study showed that Statistical reasoners, who use a more intuitive mode of processing, tend to focus more strongly on sufficiency information, that is, the ratio of positive outcomes when a putative cause is present, while Counterexample reasoners put more weight on necessity information, that is, the ratio of positive outcomes in the absence of a putative cause (Béghin et al, 2021). This difference leads to the general prediction that, all other things being equal, contingency information will produce higher ratings of efficacy among Statistical than among Counterexample reasoners.…”