Recency and primacy in causal judgments: Effects of probe question and context switch on latent inhibition and extinction

Abstract

Traditional associative models assume that associative weights are updated on a trial-by-trial basis. As a result, it is usually expected that responses based on these weights will tend to reflect the most recently presented contingencies. However, a number of studies of human causal judgments have shown primacy effects, wherein judgments obtained at the end of a series of trials are more strongly influenced by a contingency that was in force early in the sequence than by a contingency that was in force later in the sequence. The experiments described in this article replicated other work showing that requesting causal judgments during a sequence can reverse primacy and produce strong recency effects. Evidence was also obtained to suggest that primacy effects are produced by an interaction between latent inhibition and extinction processes and that requesting a judgment affects both of these processes.

Causal imprinting in causal structure learning

“…Finally, much previous work on causal learning has shown that whether primacy or recency effects are observed depends greatly on the specific methods used, such as presentation format, working memory load, frequency of elicited judgments, and perhaps even the total number of trials (Fernbach & Sloman, 2009; Glautier, 2008; Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992; Marsh & Ahn, 2006). Other factors such as the temporal delay between causes and effects also have a notable impact on causal structure and strength judgments (Greville & Buehner, 2010; Lagnado & Sloman, 2004, 2006; Shanks, Pearson, & Dickinson, 1989).…”

“…Studies on the learning of causal relations between just two events have shown that causal strength estimates are often affected more by recent evidence than earlier evidence (Fernbach & Sloman, 2009; Glautier, 2008; Lopez, Shanks, Almaraz, & Fernandez, 1998). For instance, participants in Fernbach and Sloman (2009, Experiment 2) viewed five trials of contingency data between three events, and the fourth trial showed evidence inconsistent with a causal relation implied by the earlier trials.…”

Causal Imprinting in Causal Structure Learning

“…Studies on the learning of causal relations between just two events have shown that causal strength estimates are often affected more by recent evidence than earlier evidence (Fernbach & Sloman, 2009;Glautier, 2008;Lopez, Shanks, Almaraz, & Fernandez, 1998). For instance, participants in Fernbach and Sloman (2009, Experiment 2) viewed five trials of contingency data between three events, and the fourth trial showed evidence inconsistent with a causal relation implied by the earlier trials.…”

“…Finally, much previous work on causal learning has shown that whether primacy or recency effects are observed depends greatly on the specific methods used, such as presentation format, working memory load, frequency of elicited judgments, and perhaps even the total number of trials (Fernbach & Sloman, 2009;Glautier, 2008;Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992;Marsh & Ahn, 2006). Other factors such as the temporal delay between causes and effects also have a notable impact on causal structure and strength judgments (Greville & Buehner, 2010;Lagnado & Sloman, 2004Shanks, Pearson, & Dickinson, 1989).…”

BHA and Drill String Fundamentals: Technology Training for Beginners

“…Recency has a bit stronger likelihood of being recalled than primacy, but items displaying both primacy and recency are more likely to be remembered than items in the middle. Murdock's serial position effect research has been applied in various other contexts (Basile & Hampton, 2010;Castel, 2008;Glautier, 2008;Johnson & Miles, 2009;Mantonakis, Rodero, Lesschaeve & Hastie;2009Oberauer, 2003, one of which, most importantly, is the classroom where positive effects were described (Sousa, 2006).…”