人类因果学习中的不确定性和阻塞。

Peter M Jones, Tara Zaksaite, Chris J Mitchell
{"title":"人类因果学习中的不确定性和阻塞。","authors":"Peter M Jones,&nbsp;Tara Zaksaite,&nbsp;Chris J Mitchell","doi":"10.1037/xan0000185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The blocking phenomenon is one of the most enduring issues in the study of learning. Numerous explanations have been proposed, which fall into two main categories. An associative analysis states that, following A+/AX+ training, Cue A prevents an associative link from forming between X and the outcome. In contrast, an inferential explanation is that A+/AX+ training does not permit an inference that X causes the outcome. More specifically, the trials on which X is presented (AX+) are often argued to be uninformative with respect to the causal status of X because the outcome would have resulted on AX trials whether X was causal or not. If participants are uncertain about X, their ratings on test might be particularly sensitive to the overall base rate of the outcome. That is, a blocked cue, about which one is uncertain, should be rated as a more likely cause when most cues lead to the outcome than when most cues do not. This hypothesis was supported in 2 experiments. Experiment 1 used an overshadowing control and Experiment 2 used an uncorrelated control (to demonstrate a redundancy effect). Variations in the ratings of the blocked cue as a result of manipulating the outcome base rate can be explained if participants are uncertain about the status of the blocked cue. Experiment 3 showed that participants are uncertain about blocked cues by using a direct self-report measure of certainty. These data are consistent with the inferential account, but are more challenging for the associative analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":"45 1","pages":"111-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncertainty and blocking in human causal learning.\",\"authors\":\"Peter M Jones,&nbsp;Tara Zaksaite,&nbsp;Chris J Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xan0000185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The blocking phenomenon is one of the most enduring issues in the study of learning. Numerous explanations have been proposed, which fall into two main categories. An associative analysis states that, following A+/AX+ training, Cue A prevents an associative link from forming between X and the outcome. In contrast, an inferential explanation is that A+/AX+ training does not permit an inference that X causes the outcome. More specifically, the trials on which X is presented (AX+) are often argued to be uninformative with respect to the causal status of X because the outcome would have resulted on AX trials whether X was causal or not. If participants are uncertain about X, their ratings on test might be particularly sensitive to the overall base rate of the outcome. That is, a blocked cue, about which one is uncertain, should be rated as a more likely cause when most cues lead to the outcome than when most cues do not. This hypothesis was supported in 2 experiments. Experiment 1 used an overshadowing control and Experiment 2 used an uncorrelated control (to demonstrate a redundancy effect). Variations in the ratings of the blocked cue as a result of manipulating the outcome base rate can be explained if participants are uncertain about the status of the blocked cue. Experiment 3 showed that participants are uncertain about blocked cues by using a direct self-report measure of certainty. These data are consistent with the inferential account, but are more challenging for the associative analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"111-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000185\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

阻滞现象是学习研究中最持久的问题之一。人们提出了许多解释,主要分为两类。联想分析表明,在A+/AX+训练之后,线索A阻止了X和结果之间形成联想联系。相反,推论解释是,A+/AX+训练不允许推断X导致结果。更具体地说,提出X的试验(AX+)通常被认为对X的因果状态没有提供信息,因为无论X是否为因果,结果都会导致AX试验的结果。如果参与者对X不确定,他们在测试中的评分可能对结果的总体基本率特别敏感。也就是说,当大多数线索导致结果时,与大多数线索没有导致结果时相比,一个不确定的受阻线索应该被评为更可能的原因。这一假设得到了2个实验的支持。实验1使用遮蔽控制,实验2使用不相关控制(以证明冗余效应)。如果参与者不确定被阻止的线索的状态,则可以解释由于操纵结果基准率而导致的被阻止线索评级的变化。实验3表明,通过使用直接的自我报告测量确定性,参与者对被屏蔽的线索不确定。这些数据与推理解释一致,但对关联分析更具挑战性。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c) 2019 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Uncertainty and blocking in human causal learning.

The blocking phenomenon is one of the most enduring issues in the study of learning. Numerous explanations have been proposed, which fall into two main categories. An associative analysis states that, following A+/AX+ training, Cue A prevents an associative link from forming between X and the outcome. In contrast, an inferential explanation is that A+/AX+ training does not permit an inference that X causes the outcome. More specifically, the trials on which X is presented (AX+) are often argued to be uninformative with respect to the causal status of X because the outcome would have resulted on AX trials whether X was causal or not. If participants are uncertain about X, their ratings on test might be particularly sensitive to the overall base rate of the outcome. That is, a blocked cue, about which one is uncertain, should be rated as a more likely cause when most cues lead to the outcome than when most cues do not. This hypothesis was supported in 2 experiments. Experiment 1 used an overshadowing control and Experiment 2 used an uncorrelated control (to demonstrate a redundancy effect). Variations in the ratings of the blocked cue as a result of manipulating the outcome base rate can be explained if participants are uncertain about the status of the blocked cue. Experiment 3 showed that participants are uncertain about blocked cues by using a direct self-report measure of certainty. These data are consistent with the inferential account, but are more challenging for the associative analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
23.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition publishes experimental and theoretical studies concerning all aspects of animal behavior processes.
期刊最新文献
Valence generalization across nonrecurring structures. Learned biases in the processing of outcomes: A brief review of the outcome predictability effect. Conditioned inhibition: Historical critiques and controversies in the light of recent advances. The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction. On the role of responses in Pavlovian acquisition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1