title: Blocking in human causal learning is affected by outcome assumptions manipulated through causal structure.
abstract: Additivity-related assumptions have been proven to modulate blocking in human causal learning. Typically, these assumptions are manipulated by means of pretraining phases (including exposure to different outcome magnitudes), or through explicit instructions. In two experiments, we used a different approach that involved neither pretraining nor instructional manipulations. Instead, we manipulated the causal structure in which the cues were embedded, thereby appealing directly to the participants' prior knowledge about causal relations and how causes would add up to yield stronger outcomes. Specifically, in our "different-system" condition, the participants should assume that the outcomes would add up, whereas in our "same-system" condition, a ceiling effect would prevent such an assumption. Consistent with our predictions, Experiment 1 showed that, when two cues from separate causal systems were combined, the participants did expect a stronger outcome on compound trials, and blocking was found, whereas when the cues belonged to the same causal system, the participants did not expect a stronger outcome on compound trials, and blocking was not observed. The results were partially replicated in Experiment 2, in which this pattern was found when the cues were tested for the second time. This evidence supports the claim that prior knowledge about the nature of causal relations can affect human causal learning. In addition, the fact that we did not manipulate causal assumptions through pretraining renders the results hard to account for with associative theories of learning.
authors.affiliation: University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain, fblanco81@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Fernando
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Blanco
authors.forename: Frank
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Baeyens
authors.forename: Tom
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Beckers
mesh_terms: D015984:Causality; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology*; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2008 Mar;77(3):443-5
references.pmid: 17997048
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2002 Jul;55(3):965-85
references.pmid: 12188522
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 2002 Apr;55(2):121-35
references.pmid: 12075979
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Jan;31(1):133-42
references.pmid: 12699149
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2010 Apr;36(2):296-306
references.pmid: 20384408
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(9):1675-98
references.pmid: 22512279
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 2002 Oct;55(4):311-29
references.pmid: 12350284
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Mar;31(2):238-49
references.pmid: 15755242
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Apr;32(2):183-98; discussion 198-246
references.pmid: 19386174
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2011 Oct 28;2:277
references.pmid: 22059079
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2007 Mar 4;31(2):233-56
references.pmid: 21635296
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2005 May;33(2):239-49
references.pmid: 16075842
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 2004 Oct;57(4):361-79
references.pmid: 15513261
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Mar;60(3):356-68
references.pmid: 17366305
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2013 Mar;41(1):61-76
references.pmid: 22753000
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006 Feb;135(1):92-102
references.pmid: 16478318