Two Mechanisms of Human Contingency Learning

How do humans learn contingencies between events? Both pathway-strengthening and inference-based process models have been proposed to explain contingency learning. We propose that each of these processes is used in different conditions. Participants viewed displays that contained single or paired ob...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychological science 2012-01, Vol.23 (1), p.59-68
Hauptverfasser: Sternberg, Daniel A., McClelland, James L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 68
container_issue 1
container_start_page 59
container_title Psychological science
container_volume 23
creator Sternberg, Daniel A.
McClelland, James L.
description How do humans learn contingencies between events? Both pathway-strengthening and inference-based process models have been proposed to explain contingency learning. We propose that each of these processes is used in different conditions. Participants viewed displays that contained single or paired objects and learned which displays were usually followed by the appearance of a dot. Some participants predicted whether the dot would appear before seeing the outcome, whereas other participants were required to respond quickly if the dot appeared shortly after the display. In the prediction task, instructions guiding participants to infer which objects caused the dot to appear were necessary in order for contingencies associated with one object to influence participants' predictions about the object with which it had been paired. In the response task, contingencies associated with one object affected responses to its pair mate irrespective of whether or not participants were given causal instructions. Our results challenge single-mechanism accounts of contingency learning and suggest that the mechanisms underlying performance in the two tasks are distinct.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0956797611429577
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_918651355</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>41416994</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_0956797611429577</sage_id><sourcerecordid>41416994</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-2bb8fe797b38cf8a7ac65af1c447926dbae5bd73d1c028021958d9d921079d033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9LwzAUx4Mobk7vXpQieLOal5_NUYY6YeJlnkuaprNjTWeyIvvvzejcwIO5PML7vO_3yxehS8D3AFI-YMWFVFIAMKK4lEdoCEzIVJEMH6Phdp1u9wN0FsICxyepOEUDQkBliqghupt9t8mbNZ_a1aEJSVslk67RLhm3bl27uXVmk0yt9i5-ztFJpZfBXuzmCH08P83Gk3T6_vI6fpymhhG-TklRZJWNvgXNTJVpqY3gugLDmFRElIW2vCglLcHgGDRm4VmpSkUAS1ViSkfoptdd-fars2GdL9rOu2iZK8gEB8p5hHAPGd-G4G2Vr3zdaL_JAefbdvK_7cST651uVzS23B_81hGB2x2gg9HLymtn6nDgeCyXAotc2nNBz-0h3D_GVz2_COvW7_UYMBBKMfoD2BWAsg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>918651355</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Two Mechanisms of Human Contingency Learning</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Sternberg, Daniel A. ; McClelland, James L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sternberg, Daniel A. ; McClelland, James L.</creatorcontrib><description>How do humans learn contingencies between events? Both pathway-strengthening and inference-based process models have been proposed to explain contingency learning. We propose that each of these processes is used in different conditions. Participants viewed displays that contained single or paired objects and learned which displays were usually followed by the appearance of a dot. Some participants predicted whether the dot would appear before seeing the outcome, whereas other participants were required to respond quickly if the dot appeared shortly after the display. In the prediction task, instructions guiding participants to infer which objects caused the dot to appear were necessary in order for contingencies associated with one object to influence participants' predictions about the object with which it had been paired. In the response task, contingencies associated with one object affected responses to its pair mate irrespective of whether or not participants were given causal instructions. Our results challenge single-mechanism accounts of contingency learning and suggest that the mechanisms underlying performance in the two tasks are distinct.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0956-7976</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9280</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0956797611429577</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22198929</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PSYSET</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Association Learning - physiology ; Associative learning ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Cues ; Food ; Food allergies ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Humans ; Inference ; Learning ; Learning. Memory ; Legal objections ; Memory ; Outcomes of education ; Predictions ; Psychology ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Psychomotor Performance - physiology ; Reaction Time ; Screening tests ; Training</subject><ispartof>Psychological science, 2012-01, Vol.23 (1), p.59-68</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 Association for Psychological Science</rights><rights>Association for Psychological Science 2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Jan 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-2bb8fe797b38cf8a7ac65af1c447926dbae5bd73d1c028021958d9d921079d033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-2bb8fe797b38cf8a7ac65af1c447926dbae5bd73d1c028021958d9d921079d033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41416994$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41416994$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,4024,21819,27923,27924,27925,43621,43622,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25467314$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198929$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sternberg, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClelland, James L.</creatorcontrib><title>Two Mechanisms of Human Contingency Learning</title><title>Psychological science</title><addtitle>Psychol Sci</addtitle><description>How do humans learn contingencies between events? Both pathway-strengthening and inference-based process models have been proposed to explain contingency learning. We propose that each of these processes is used in different conditions. Participants viewed displays that contained single or paired objects and learned which displays were usually followed by the appearance of a dot. Some participants predicted whether the dot would appear before seeing the outcome, whereas other participants were required to respond quickly if the dot appeared shortly after the display. In the prediction task, instructions guiding participants to infer which objects caused the dot to appear were necessary in order for contingencies associated with one object to influence participants' predictions about the object with which it had been paired. In the response task, contingencies associated with one object affected responses to its pair mate irrespective of whether or not participants were given causal instructions. Our results challenge single-mechanism accounts of contingency learning and suggest that the mechanisms underlying performance in the two tasks are distinct.</description><subject>Association Learning - physiology</subject><subject>Associative learning</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food allergies</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inference</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning. Memory</subject><subject>Legal objections</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Outcomes of education</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Psychomotor Performance - physiology</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Screening tests</subject><subject>Training</subject><issn>0956-7976</issn><issn>1467-9280</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM9LwzAUx4Mobk7vXpQieLOal5_NUYY6YeJlnkuaprNjTWeyIvvvzejcwIO5PML7vO_3yxehS8D3AFI-YMWFVFIAMKK4lEdoCEzIVJEMH6Phdp1u9wN0FsICxyepOEUDQkBliqghupt9t8mbNZ_a1aEJSVslk67RLhm3bl27uXVmk0yt9i5-ztFJpZfBXuzmCH08P83Gk3T6_vI6fpymhhG-TklRZJWNvgXNTJVpqY3gugLDmFRElIW2vCglLcHgGDRm4VmpSkUAS1ViSkfoptdd-fars2GdL9rOu2iZK8gEB8p5hHAPGd-G4G2Vr3zdaL_JAefbdvK_7cST651uVzS23B_81hGB2x2gg9HLymtn6nDgeCyXAotc2nNBz-0h3D_GVz2_COvW7_UYMBBKMfoD2BWAsg</recordid><startdate>20120101</startdate><enddate>20120101</enddate><creator>Sternberg, Daniel A.</creator><creator>McClelland, James L.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120101</creationdate><title>Two Mechanisms of Human Contingency Learning</title><author>Sternberg, Daniel A. ; McClelland, James L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-2bb8fe797b38cf8a7ac65af1c447926dbae5bd73d1c028021958d9d921079d033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Association Learning - physiology</topic><topic>Associative learning</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food allergies</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inference</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning. Memory</topic><topic>Legal objections</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Outcomes of education</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Psychomotor Performance - physiology</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Screening tests</topic><topic>Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sternberg, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClelland, James L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Psychological science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sternberg, Daniel A.</au><au>McClelland, James L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Two Mechanisms of Human Contingency Learning</atitle><jtitle>Psychological science</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Sci</addtitle><date>2012-01-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>59</spage><epage>68</epage><pages>59-68</pages><issn>0956-7976</issn><eissn>1467-9280</eissn><coden>PSYSET</coden><abstract>How do humans learn contingencies between events? Both pathway-strengthening and inference-based process models have been proposed to explain contingency learning. We propose that each of these processes is used in different conditions. Participants viewed displays that contained single or paired objects and learned which displays were usually followed by the appearance of a dot. Some participants predicted whether the dot would appear before seeing the outcome, whereas other participants were required to respond quickly if the dot appeared shortly after the display. In the prediction task, instructions guiding participants to infer which objects caused the dot to appear were necessary in order for contingencies associated with one object to influence participants' predictions about the object with which it had been paired. In the response task, contingencies associated with one object affected responses to its pair mate irrespective of whether or not participants were given causal instructions. Our results challenge single-mechanism accounts of contingency learning and suggest that the mechanisms underlying performance in the two tasks are distinct.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>22198929</pmid><doi>10.1177/0956797611429577</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0956-7976
ispartof Psychological science, 2012-01, Vol.23 (1), p.59-68
issn 0956-7976
1467-9280
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_918651355
source Access via SAGE; MEDLINE; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Association Learning - physiology
Associative learning
Biological and medical sciences
Cognition & reasoning
Cues
Food
Food allergies
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Human
Humans
Inference
Learning
Learning. Memory
Legal objections
Memory
Outcomes of education
Predictions
Psychology
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Psychomotor Performance - physiology
Reaction Time
Screening tests
Training
title Two Mechanisms of Human Contingency Learning
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T12%3A08%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Two%20Mechanisms%20of%20Human%20Contingency%20Learning&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20science&rft.au=Sternberg,%20Daniel%20A.&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=59&rft.epage=68&rft.pages=59-68&rft.issn=0956-7976&rft.eissn=1467-9280&rft.coden=PSYSET&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0956797611429577&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E41416994%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=918651355&rft_id=info:pmid/22198929&rft_jstor_id=41416994&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0956797611429577&rfr_iscdi=true