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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychological science 2012-01, Vol.23 (1), p.59-68 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & 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&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 & 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 & 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 |