Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking
Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking
Participants saw a series of situations in which a cue (a light appearing at a certain position) could be followed by an outcome (a drawing of a tank that exploded) and were afterwards asked to rate the likelihood of the outcome in the presence of the cue. In Experiments 1 and 2, the compound cues AT and KL were always followed by the outcome (AT+, KL+). During an elemental phase that either preceded or followed the compound phase, Cue A was also paired with the outcome (A+). Cue T elicited a lower rating than Cues K and L when cues were described as being weapons but not when the cues were said to be indicators. The magnitude of this blocking effect was also influenced by whether the outcome occurred to a maximal or submaximal extent. Experiment 3 replicated the effect of cue instructions on blocking (A+, AT+) but showed that cue instructions had no impact on reduced overshadowing (B-, BT+). The results shed new light on previous findings and support probabilistic contrast models of human contingency judgements.
965-985
De Houwer, Jan
87f1c427-b67c-4296-868b-935c0557193e
Beckers, Tom
d024b28d-2e35-4b03-a4e6-cad137434a5b
Glautier, Steven
964468b2-3ad7-40cc-b4be-e35c7dee518f
2002
De Houwer, Jan
87f1c427-b67c-4296-868b-935c0557193e
Beckers, Tom
d024b28d-2e35-4b03-a4e6-cad137434a5b
Glautier, Steven
964468b2-3ad7-40cc-b4be-e35c7dee518f
De Houwer, Jan, Beckers, Tom and Glautier, Steven
(2002)
Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking.
Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology Section A - Human Experimental Psychology, 55 (3), .
(doi:10.1080/02724980143000578).
Abstract
Participants saw a series of situations in which a cue (a light appearing at a certain position) could be followed by an outcome (a drawing of a tank that exploded) and were afterwards asked to rate the likelihood of the outcome in the presence of the cue. In Experiments 1 and 2, the compound cues AT and KL were always followed by the outcome (AT+, KL+). During an elemental phase that either preceded or followed the compound phase, Cue A was also paired with the outcome (A+). Cue T elicited a lower rating than Cues K and L when cues were described as being weapons but not when the cues were said to be indicators. The magnitude of this blocking effect was also influenced by whether the outcome occurred to a maximal or submaximal extent. Experiment 3 replicated the effect of cue instructions on blocking (A+, AT+) but showed that cue instructions had no impact on reduced overshadowing (B-, BT+). The results shed new light on previous findings and support probabilistic contrast models of human contingency judgements.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2002
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 18601
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/18601
ISSN: 0272-4987
PURE UUID: 14f2aea5-93d0-4bfe-b98b-a08a8f738a6b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 30 Nov 2005
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 02:59
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Jan De Houwer
Author:
Tom Beckers
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics