The role of uncertainty in regulating associative change.

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Yvonne Y Chan, Jessica C Lee, Justine P Fam, R Frederick Westbrook, Nathan M Holmes
{"title":"The role of uncertainty in regulating associative change.","authors":"Yvonne Y Chan, Jessica C Lee, Justine P Fam, R Frederick Westbrook, Nathan M Holmes","doi":"10.1037/xan0000375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rescorla (2000, 2001) interpreted his compound test results to show that both common and individual error terms regulate associative change such that the element of a conditioned compound with the greater prediction error undergoes greater associative change than the one with the smaller prediction error. However, it has recently been suggested that uncertainty, not prediction error, is the primary determinant of associative change in people (Spicer et al., 2020, 2022). The current experiments use the compound test in a continuous outcome allergist task to assess the role of uncertainty in associative change, using two different manipulations of uncertainty: outcome uncertainty (where participants are uncertain of the level of the outcome on a particular trial) and causal uncertainty (where participants are uncertain of the contribution of the cue to the level of the outcome). We replicate Rescorla's compound test results in the case of both associative gains (Experiment 1) and associative losses (Experiment 3) and then provide evidence for greater change to more uncertain cues in the case of associative gains (Experiments 2 and 4), but not associative losses (Experiments 3 and 5). We discuss the findings in terms of the notion of theory protection advanced by Spicer et al., and other ways of thinking about the compound test procedure, such as that proposed by Holmes et al. (2019). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54259,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000375","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rescorla (2000, 2001) interpreted his compound test results to show that both common and individual error terms regulate associative change such that the element of a conditioned compound with the greater prediction error undergoes greater associative change than the one with the smaller prediction error. However, it has recently been suggested that uncertainty, not prediction error, is the primary determinant of associative change in people (Spicer et al., 2020, 2022). The current experiments use the compound test in a continuous outcome allergist task to assess the role of uncertainty in associative change, using two different manipulations of uncertainty: outcome uncertainty (where participants are uncertain of the level of the outcome on a particular trial) and causal uncertainty (where participants are uncertain of the contribution of the cue to the level of the outcome). We replicate Rescorla's compound test results in the case of both associative gains (Experiment 1) and associative losses (Experiment 3) and then provide evidence for greater change to more uncertain cues in the case of associative gains (Experiments 2 and 4), but not associative losses (Experiments 3 and 5). We discuss the findings in terms of the notion of theory protection advanced by Spicer et al., and other ways of thinking about the compound test procedure, such as that proposed by Holmes et al. (2019). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

不确定性在调节联想变化中的作用。
Rescorla(2000 年、2001 年)对其复合测试结果的解释是,共同误差和个别误差项都会调节联想变化,因此条件复合体中预测误差较大的元素会比预测误差较小的元素发生更大的联想变化。然而,最近有研究表明,不确定性而非预测误差才是人们联想变化的主要决定因素(Spicer 等人,2020 年,2022 年)。目前的实验使用连续结果过敏者任务中的复合测试来评估不确定性在联想变化中的作用,实验中使用了两种不同的不确定性操作:结果不确定性(参与者不确定特定试验的结果水平)和因果不确定性(参与者不确定线索对结果水平的贡献)。我们在联想收益(实验 1)和联想损失(实验 3)的情况下复制了 Rescorla 的复合测试结果,然后提供证据表明,在联想收益(实验 2 和 4)的情况下,对更不确定的线索的改变更大,而在联想损失(实验 3 和 5)的情况下则不然。我们将从斯派塞等人提出的理论保护概念,以及霍姆斯等人(2019)提出的复合测试程序的其他思考方式来讨论这些发现。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition Psychology-Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
23.10%
发文量
39
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信