Abstract
The relative validity effect (Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968) demonstrated that a strong cue or cause reduces responding to, or judgments of, a weaker cue or cause. We report two experiments with human subjects using relative validity preparations in which we investigate one- and two-cue competition effects. Previously, we investigated the effect using instrumental and Pavlovian conditioning preparations with rats. In the first experiment, we used a procedure analogous to the animal preparations. In the second experiment, we used a different probabilistic procedure. The results with humans and rats are very similar. In each species we find similar interference with processing the moderate predictor with one or with two strong competitors.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,15, 147–149.
Arcediano, F., Matute, H., &Miller, R. R. (1997). Blocking of Pavlovian conditioning in humans.Learning & Motivation,28, 188–199.
Baker, A. G., &Mercier, P. (1989). Attention, retrospective processing and cognitive representation. In. S. B. Klein & R. R. Mower (Eds.),Contemporary learning theory (pp. 85–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Frank, R., &Pan, M. (1993). Selective associations and causality judgments: Presence of a strong causal factor may reduce judgments of a weaker one.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 414–432.
Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., &Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (1996). Associative and normative models of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding cause. In D. L. Medin, D. Shanks, & K. Holyoak (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 1–45). San Diego: Academic Press.
Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., &Mehta, R. (2001). Contingency learning and causal reasoning. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.),Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 255–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blaisdell, A. P., &Miller, R. R. (2001). Conditioned inhibition produced by extinction-mediated recovery from the relative stimulus validity effect: A test of acquisition and performance models of empirical retrospective revaluation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,27, 48–58.
Bush, R. R., &Mosteller, F. (1955).Stochastic models for learning. New York: Wiley.
Chapman, G., &Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgments.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
Cheng, P. W., &Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural induction.Psychological Review,99, 365–382.
Cole, R. P., Barnet, R. C., &Miller, R. R. (1995). Effect of relative stimulus validity: Learning or performance deficit?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,21, 293–303.
De Houwer, J., &Beckers, T. (2003). Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56B, 345–357.
Dickinson, A., Shanks, D. R., &Evenden, J. L. (1984). Judgment of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 29–50.
Gallistel, C. R. (1990).The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hull, C. L. (1943).Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Jones, S. H., Gray, J. A., &Hemsley, D. R. (1992). Loss of the Kamin blocking effect in acute but not chronic schizophrenics.Biological Psychiatry,32, 739–755.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Selective associations and conditioning. In W. K. Honig & N. J. Mackintosh (Eds.),Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 42–64). Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University Press.
Lawrence, D. H. (1952). The transfer of a discrimination along a continuum.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,45, 511–516.
Lovibond, P. F., Been, S., Mitchell, C. J., Bouton, M. E., &Frohardt, R. (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude.Memory & Cognition,31, 133–142.
Matute, H., Arcediano, F., &Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 182–196.
Miller, R. R., Barnet, R. C., &Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model.Psychological Bulletin,117, 363–386.
Miller, R. R., &Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Murphy, R. A., &Baker, A. G. (2004). A role for CS-US contingency in Pavlovian conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,30, 229–239.
Murphy, R. A., Baker, A. G., &Fouquet, N. (2001a). Relative validity effects with either one or two more valid cues in Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,27, 59–67.
Murphy, R. A., Baker, A. G., &Fouquet, N. (2001b). Relative validity of contextual and discrete cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,27, 137–152.
Murphy, R. A., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Msetfi, R., &Baker, A. G. (2005). Signal-outcome contingency, contiguity and the depressive realism effect. In A. Wills (Ed.),New directions in associative learning (pp. 193–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rickert, E. J., Lorden, J. F., Dawson, R. Jr.,Smyly, E., &Callahan, M. F. (1979). Stimulus processing and stimulus selection in rats with hippocampal lesions.Behavioral & Neural Biology,27, 454–465.
Spence, K. W. (1937). The differential response to stimuli varying within a single dimension.Psychological Review,44, 430–444.
Spence, K. W. (1940). Continuous versus noncontinuous interpretation of discrimination learning.Psychological Review,47, 271–288.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of manner of information presentation.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,31, 457–460.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentations of compound stimulus elements.Learning & Motivation,25, 127–151.
Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., Haberlandt, K., &Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 171–180.
Waldmann, M. R., &Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 222–236.
White, P. A. (1998). Causal judgement: Use of different types of contingency information as confirmatory and disconfirmatory.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,10, 131–170.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
These results are not well predicted by most associative models. This research was supported by a National Science and Engineering Research Council Grant to A.G.B.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baetu, I., Baker, A.G., Darredeau, C. et al. A comparative approach to cue competition with one and two strong predictors. Learning & Behavior 33, 160–171 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196060
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196060