2009
DOI: 10.3758/lb.37.4.336
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Generalization of causal efficacy judgments after evaluative learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

3
39
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
3
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As for the evaluative function, studies by Barnes-Holmes et al (2000) aforementioned, Dack, Reed, and McHugh (2010;see also Dack, McHugh, &Reed, 2009), andSmyth, BarnesHolmes, andForsyth (2007) seem the closest evidence to the derived transfer of the EC effect. With their focus on examining the conditions under which molar versus molecular aspects of various schedules of reinforcement determine EC and its transfer, Dack et al (2010) showed that participants used nonsense words that had been previously established in an equivalence class with words good and useless to categorize two color circles in whose presence participants were provided with consequences under different schedules of reinforcement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…As for the evaluative function, studies by Barnes-Holmes et al (2000) aforementioned, Dack, Reed, and McHugh (2010;see also Dack, McHugh, &Reed, 2009), andSmyth, BarnesHolmes, andForsyth (2007) seem the closest evidence to the derived transfer of the EC effect. With their focus on examining the conditions under which molar versus molecular aspects of various schedules of reinforcement determine EC and its transfer, Dack et al (2010) showed that participants used nonsense words that had been previously established in an equivalence class with words good and useless to categorize two color circles in whose presence participants were provided with consequences under different schedules of reinforcement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Despite these findings (Dack et al, 2009), it is still not clear which aspects of the schedule contingencies are responsible for controlling the efficacy ratings or their subsequent transfer. Dack et al assumed that the transfer of stimulus function followed the ratings of causal efficacy that the schedule produced-an assumption strengthened by the fact that aspects of the contingencies, like the probability of an outcome given a response (Experiment 3), were controlled.…”
Section: Swansea University Swansea Walesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…are not easy to control, since schedules of reinforcement, by their nature, are free operant, and it is difficult to exert complete control over all factors simultaneously (see Jenkins, 1970, for a discussion). In spite of this difficulty, previous research (Dack et al, 2009) on this topic did employ such schedules of reinforcement, while controlling for rate of reinforcement (Experiment 2) and outcome probability (Experiment 3). However, all the schedules employed in this research produced different rates of response and had different response reinforcement rules.…”
Section: Swansea University Swansea Walesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations