The Redundancy Effect on Human Predictive Learning: Evidence against a Propositional Interpretation
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
The redundancy effect is the finding of greater learning when an X stimulus is trained in an A+ AX+ blocking procedure, than when a Y stimulus is trained in a BY+ CY- discrimination procedure. These findings are new and theoretically challenging for all conditioning theories that calculate learning based on a common error. For this reason, we alternatively examined the possibility that the phenomenon is the result of a propositional reasoning. In an experiment, we replicated the basic effect and we found out that the addition of instructions on the occurrence of the consequences at a submaximal level does not have a significant impact on the redundancy effect. These findings are discussed with regard to a propositional and associative approach based on the assumption that the experimental stimuli share a common feature.
Detalhes do artigo
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Commons Attribution License, CCAL). Com esta licença, os autores conservam o direito de propriedade sobre artigos mas permitem que qualquer pessoa façam download e distribuam os artigos publicados na RACC sem necessidade da permissão do autor ou editor. Uma última condição é que sempre, e em todos os casos, o autor e a fonte original de publicação (p.e., RACC) sejam citados. Esta licença foi desenvolvido para facilitar o acesso aberto, gratuito e livre a trabalhos originais do arte e ciência.
Como Citar
Referências
References
Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., Pineño, O., & Miller, R. R. (2005). Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 238-249. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.238.
Beesley, T., & Le Pelley, M. E. (2011). The influence of blocking on overt attention and associability in human learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37(1), 114-120. doi: 10.1037/a0019526.
Bush, R. R., & Mosteller, F. (1951). A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychological Review, 58(5), 313-323. doi: 10.1037/h0054388.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104(2), 367-405. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367.
Davey, G. C., & Singh, J. (1988). The Kamin "blocking" effect and electrodermal conditioning in humans. Journal of Psychophysiology, 2(1), 17-25.
De Houwer, J. D., Beckers, T., & Glautier, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 55(3), 965-985. doi: 10.1080/02724980143000578.
Dopson, J. C., Pearce, J. M., & Haselgrove, M. (2009). Failure of retrospective revaluation to influence blocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35(4), 473-484. doi: 10.1037/a0014907.
Dwyer, D. M., Haselgrove, M., & Jones, P. M. (2011). Cue interactions in flavor preference learning: A configural analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37(1), 41-57. doi: 10.1037/a0021033.
Haselgrove, M. (2010). Reasoning rats or associative animals? A common element analysis of the effects of additive and subadditive pretraining on blocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36(2), 296-306. doi: 10.1037/a0016603.
Hinchy, J., Lovibond, P. F., & Ter-Horst, K. M. (1995). Blocking in human electrodermal conditioning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(1b), 2-12. doi: 10.1080/14640749508401433.
Jeffreys, H. (1961). The theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jones, P. M., & Pearce, J. M. (2015). The fate of redundant cues: Further analysis of the redundancy effect. Learning & Behavior, 43(1), 72-82. doi: 10.3758/s13420-014-0162-x.
Jones, P. M., & Zaksaite, T. (2017). The redundancy effect in human causal learning: No evidence for changes in selective attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(8), 1748-1760. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1350868.
Jones, P. M., Zaksaite, T., & Mitchell, C. J. (2019). Uncertainty and blocking in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 45(1), 111-124. doi: 10.1037/xan0000185.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. En B. A. Cambell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and Aversive Behavior (pp. 279-296). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kimmel, H. D., & Bevill, M. J. (1991). Blocking and unconditioned response diminution in human classical autonomic conditioning. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26(2), 132-138. doi: 10.1007/BF02691036.
Kimmel, H. D., & Bevill, M. J. (1996). Blocking and unconditioned response diminution in human classical autonomic conditioning. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 31(1), 18-43. doi: 10.1007/BF02691479.
Lovibond, P. F., Been, S. L., Mitchell, C. J., Bouton, M. E., & Frohardt, R. (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory and Cognition, 31(1), 133-142. doi: 10.3758/BF03196088.
Lovibond, P. F., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28(1), 3-26. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.28.1.3.
Maes, E., Boddez, Y., Alfei, J. M., Krypotos, A. M., D'Hooge, R., De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2016). The elusive nature of the blocking effect: 15 failures to replicate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(9), e49-e71. doi: 10.1037/xge0000200.
Maes, E., Krypotos, A. M., Boddez, Y., Alfei Palloni, J. M., D'Hooge, R., De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2018). Failures to replicate blocking are surprising and informative-Reply to Soto. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(4), 603-610. doi: 10.1037/xge0000413.
Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2), 183-198. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09000855.
Mitchell, C. J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2002). Backward and forward blocking in human electrodermal conditioning: Blocking requires an assumption of outcome additivity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 55(4b), 311-329. doi: 10.1080/02724990244000025.
Pearce, J. M., Dopson, J. C., Haselgrove, M., & Esber, G. R. (2012). The fate of redundant cues during blocking and a simple discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38(2), 167-179. doi: 10.1037/a0027662.
Pearce, J. M., Graham, M., Good, M. A., Jones, P. M., & McGregor, A. (2006). Potentiation, overshadowing, and blocking of spatial learning based on the shape of the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32(3), 201-214. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.32.3.201.
Psychology Software Tools Inc. (2004). E-Prime 1.1 [Software de computación]. Recuperado de: https://www.pstnet.com.
Rescorla, R. A., & Durlach, P. (1981). Within-event learning in Pavlovian conditioning. En N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms (pp. 81-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. En A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Theory and Research (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Soto, F. A. (2018). Contemporary associative learning theory predicts failures to obtain blocking. Comment on Maes et al. (2016). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(4), 597-602. doi: 10.1037/xge0000341.
Soto, F. A., Gershman, S. J., & Niv, Y. (2014). Explaining compound generalization in associative and causal learning through rational principles of dimensional generalization. Psychological Review, 121(3), 526-558. doi: 10.1037/a0037018.
Soto, F. A., Vogel, E. H., Castillo, R. D., & Wagner, A. R. (2009). Generality of the summation effect in human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 877-889. doi: 10.1080/17470210802373688.
Uengoer, M., Dwyer, D. M., Koenig, S., & Pearce, J. M. (2017). A test for a difference in the associability of blocked and uninformative cues in human predictive learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(2), 222-237. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1345957.
Uengoer, M., Lotz, A., & Pearce, J. M. (2013). The fate of redundant cues in human predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 39(4), 323-333. doi: 10.1037/a0034073.
Vogel, E. H., Ponce, F. P., & Wagner, A. R. (2016). A theoretical analysis of transfer of occasion setting: SOP with replaced elements. Behavioural Processes, 137, 19-32. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.06.013.
Vogel, E. H., & Wagner, A. R. (2017). A theoretical note in interpretation of the “redundancy effect” in associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 43(1), 119-125. doi: 10.1037/xan0000123.
Zaksaite, T., & Jones, P. M. (July, 2017). The Redundancy Effect in Human Causal Learning: Evidence against a Comparator Theory Explanation. Poster presented in Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of The Cognitive Science Society, London, UK.