Failures to Replicate Blocking Are Surprising and Informative-Reply to Soto (2018)

The blocking effect has inspired numerous associative learning theories and is widely cited in the literature. We recently reported a series of 15 experiments that failed to obtain a blocking effect in rodents. On the basis of those consistent failures, we claimed that there is a lack of insight int...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL 2018-04, Vol.147 (4), p.603-610
Hauptverfasser: Maes, Elisa, Krypotos, Angelos-Miltiadis, Boddez, Yannick, Alfei Palloni, Joaquín Matias, D'Hooge, Rudi, De Houwer, Jan, Beckers, Tom
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The blocking effect has inspired numerous associative learning theories and is widely cited in the literature. We recently reported a series of 15 experiments that failed to obtain a blocking effect in rodents. On the basis of those consistent failures, we claimed that there is a lack of insight into the boundary conditions for blocking. In his commentary, Soto (2018) argued that contemporary associative learning theory does provide a specific boundary condition for the occurrence of blocking, namely the use of same- versus different-modality stimuli. Given that in 10 of our 15 experiments same-modality stimuli were used, he claims that our failure to observe a blocking effect is unsurprising. We disagree with that claim, because of theoretical, empirical, and statistical problems with his analysis. We also address 2 other possible reasons for a lack of blocking that are referred to in Soto's (2018) analysis, related to generalization and salience, and dissect the potential importance of both. Although Soto's (2018) analyses raise a number of interesting points, we see more merit in an empirically guided analysis and call for empirical testing of boundary conditions on blocking. (PsycINFO Database Record
ISSN:0096-3445