Judgement of Act-Outcome Contingency: The Role of Selective Attribution
- 1 February 1984
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
- Vol. 36 (1) , 29-50
- https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748408401502
Abstract
In the first experiment subjects were presented with a number of sets of trials on each of which they could perform a particular action and observe the occurrence of an outcome in the context of a video game. The contingency between the action and outcome was varied across the different sets of trials. When required to judge the effectiveness of the action in controlling the outcome during a set of trials, subjects assigned positive ratings for a positive contingency and negative ratings for a negative contingency. Furthermore, the magnitude of the ratings was related systematically to the strength of the actual contingency. With a fixed probability of an outcome given the action, judgements of positive contingencies decreased as the likelihood that the outcome would occur without the action was raised. Correspondingly, the absolute value of ratings of negative contingencies was increased both by an increment in the probability of the outcome in the absence of the action and by a decrement in the probability of the outcome following the action. A systematic bias was observed, however, in that positive judgements were given under a non-contingent relationship when the outcome frequency was relatively high. However, this bias could be reduced by giving extended exposure to the non-contingent schedule (Experiment 2). This pattern of contingency judgements can be explained if it is assumed that a process of selective attribution operates, whereby people are less likely to attribute an outcome to some potential target cause if another effective cause is present. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated the operation of this process by showing that initially establishing another agent as an effective cause of the outcome subsequently reduced or blocked the extent to which the subjects attributed the outcome to the action. Finally, we argue that the pattern and bias in contingency judgements based upon interactions with a causal process can be explained in terms of contemporary conditioning models of associative learning.This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Formation of attentional-associative networks in real time: Role of the hippocampus and implications for conditioningPhysiological Psychology, 1980
- A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasksBulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1980
- The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives.Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie, 1980
- A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review, 1980
- Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1979
- A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review, 1975
- The processes of causal attribution.American Psychologist, 1973
- Truly random and traditional control procedures in CER conditioning in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971
- Conditioned inhibition of fear resulting from negative CS-US contingencies.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969
- Probability of shock in the presence and absence of cs in fear conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968