Search

Five experiments were conducted to explore trial order and retention interval effects upon causal predictive judgments. Experiment 1 found that participants show a strong effect of trial order when a stimulus was sequentially paired with two different outcomes compared to a condition where both outcomes were presented intermixed. Experiment 2 found that a 48-h retention interval eliminates the trial order effect, so that participants gave a global judgment about the relationship between the stimulus and the two outcomes equivalent to the one given by participants that received the two phases intermixed. This result was replicated in Experiment 3 in a situation in which the probability of the outcome in the presence of the cue was changed from 0.5 for both outcomes (Experiments 1, 2, 4, and 5) to 0.75 and 0.25 for outcomes 1 and 2, respectively. Experiment 4 found that retention intervals ranging from 45 min to 48 h eliminated the trial order effect similarly. Experiment 5 found that a 10-min retention interval replicated the effect of time upon sequential training found in precedent experiments, regardless of whether participants remained within the laboratory during the retention interval or spent it outside. The combined results of this experimental series suggest that retention intervals reduce retroactive interference in causal learning by allowing participants to use all the information presented across phases, rather than differentially increasing or decreasing retrieval of information about each of them.

This article provides the first demonstration of a reliable second-order conditioning (SOC) effect in human causal learning tasks. It demonstrates the human ability to infer relationships between a cause and an effect that were never paired together during training. Experiments 1a and 1b showed a clear and reliable SOC effect, while Experiments 2a and 2b demonstrated that first-order extinction did not affect SOC. These results were similar to those found in animal and human conditioning and suggested that a similar associative mechanism could explain these effects. However, they can also be used to look into the underlying causal mental model people build and store while they are learning this task. From a cognitive view, overall results suggest that an independent rather than a chain causal mental model is stored after second-order learning in human causal tasks.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2005.11.001 Byline: Angelica Alvarado (a), Elvia Jara (a), Javier Vila (a), Juan M. Rosas (b) Keywords: Causal learning; Retroactive interference; Trial order effect; Retention interval Abstract: Five experiments were conducted to explore trial order and retention interval effects upon causal predictive judgments. Experiment 1 found that participants show a strong effect of trial order when a stimulus was sequentially paired with two different outcomes compared to a condition where both outcomes were presented intermixed. Experiment 2 found that a 48-h retention interval eliminates the trial order effect, so that participants gave a global judgment about the relationship between the stimulus and the two outcomes equivalent to the one given by participants that received the two phases intermixed. This result was replicated in Experiment 3 in a situation in which the probability of the outcome in the presence of the cue was changed from .5 for both outcomes (Experiments 1, 2, 4, and 5) to .75 and .25 for outcomes 1 and 2, respectively. Experiment 4 found that retention intervals ranging from 45min to 48h eliminated the trial order effect similarly. Experiment 5 found that a 10-min retention interval replicated the effect of time upon sequential training found in precedent experiments, regardless of whether participants remained within the laboratory during the retention interval or spent it outside. The combined results of this experimental series suggest that retention intervals reduce retroactive interference in causal learning by allowing participants to use all the information presented across phases, rather than differentially increasing or decreasing retrieval of information about each of them. Author Affiliation: (a) Division de Investigacion y Posgrado, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, AP 314, Tlanepantla, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Edo. Mex. 54096, Mexico (b) Departamento de Psicologia, University of Jaen, 23071 Jaen, Spain Article History: Received 21 June 2005; Revised 24 October 2005 Article Note: (footnote) [star] This research was financially supported by DGAPA-UNAM (IN302301) and CONACYT (40345H) by research group HUM642 from the Junta de Andalucia, Spain, and by Grant BSO2002-03398 cofunded by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain and FEDER funds from the European community.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2005.12.001 Byline: Elvia Jara (a), Javier Vila (a), Antonio Maldonado (b) Keywords: Pavlovian conditioning; Second-order conditioning; Extinction; Causal learning Abstract: This article provides the first demonstration of a reliable second-order conditioning (SOC) effect in human causal learning tasks. It demonstrates the human ability to infer relationships between a cause and an effect that were never paired together during training. Experiments 1a and 1b showed a clear and reliable SOC effect, while Experiments 2a and 2b demonstrated that first-order extinction did not affect SOC. These results were similar to those found in animal and human conditioning and suggested that a similar associative mechanism could explain these effects. However, they can also be used to look into the underlying causal mental model people build and store while they are learning this task. From a cognitive view, overall results suggest that an independent rather than a chain causal mental model is stored after second-order learning in human causal tasks. Author Affiliation: (a) Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, F.E.S. Iztacala, Mexico (b) University of Granada, Spain Article History: Received 11 March 2005; Revised 30 November 2005 Article Note: (footnote) [star] This research was supported by founds from DGAPA-UNAM (IN302605) and CONACYT (34843-H) and by BSO2003-03723 Spanish research project, granted by MCYT (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia). We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Bruce Overmier.