Journal
LEARNING AND MOTIVATION
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 77-87Publisher
ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2004.09.001
Keywords
-
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
We have recently demonstrated that pre-training of additivity (the outcome of two causal cues is larger than one causal cue) greatly enhances blocking. This manipulation could work by removing a ceiling effect on the outcome, as proposed by Cheng (1997). Alternatively, it could remove the logical ambiguity associated with blocking under non-additive conditions, thus permitting blocking as a deductive inference. We used a counterintuitive combination rule-subtractivity rather than additivity-to discriminate between these two accounts. Prior to a backward blocking causal judgment procedure (AB+, A+), we trained participants that a compound of one causal and one non-causal cue leads to the outcome, but that a compound of two causal cues leads to no outcome. This design allows the logical deduction that cue B is non-causal (blocking), but retains the ceiling effect on outcome magnitude. Blocking was strong following both subtractivity and additivity training, supporting the deductive reasoning account. Crown Copyright (C) 2004 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available