Sahana Shankar, Nicola Byrom, Wijnand A P van Tilburg, Tim Rakow
{"title":"On the interchangeability of presentation order for cause and effect: Experimental tests of cue and outcome-density effects.","authors":"Sahana Shankar, Nicola Byrom, Wijnand A P van Tilburg, Tim Rakow","doi":"10.1177/17470218241299407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies of cue-outcome contingency learning demonstrate outcome-density effects: participants typically overestimate contingencies when the outcome event is relatively frequent. Equivalent cue-density effects occur, although these have been examined less often. Few studies have simultaneously examined both event density effects or have manipulated the presentation order of the events, limiting knowledge of whether these phenomena share underlying principles. We report three well-powered experiments to address those gaps. Participants judged the effectiveness of a medical treatment after viewing a series of pairings for two events, a cause (treatment given vs. not) and an effect (patient recovered vs. not). Experiment 1 manipulated both event densities independently. We then manipulated the presentation order for the cause and the effect, alongside a manipulation of effect density (Experiment 2a) or cause density (Experiment 2b). Experiment 1 found a large main effect of event density (<math><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> = .55), which was qualified by a significant interaction between event type and density level (<math><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> = .10) whereby effect density had greater impact than cause density. Experiments 2a and 2b found effects for effect density (<math><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> = .60) and cause density (<math><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math>= .31). The effects of cause-effect presentation order were always small and non-significant. We conclude that effect-density manipulations had substantial impact on contingency judgements, and cause-density manipulations less so. Moreover, it matters little which event (cause or effect) is seen first. These findings have implications for contingency, associative, probabilistic, and causal models of contingency judgement; primarily, that people may be more sensitive to the causal status of events than to their temporal order of presentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"17470218241299407"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241299407","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Studies of cue-outcome contingency learning demonstrate outcome-density effects: participants typically overestimate contingencies when the outcome event is relatively frequent. Equivalent cue-density effects occur, although these have been examined less often. Few studies have simultaneously examined both event density effects or have manipulated the presentation order of the events, limiting knowledge of whether these phenomena share underlying principles. We report three well-powered experiments to address those gaps. Participants judged the effectiveness of a medical treatment after viewing a series of pairings for two events, a cause (treatment given vs. not) and an effect (patient recovered vs. not). Experiment 1 manipulated both event densities independently. We then manipulated the presentation order for the cause and the effect, alongside a manipulation of effect density (Experiment 2a) or cause density (Experiment 2b). Experiment 1 found a large main effect of event density ( = .55), which was qualified by a significant interaction between event type and density level ( = .10) whereby effect density had greater impact than cause density. Experiments 2a and 2b found effects for effect density ( = .60) and cause density (= .31). The effects of cause-effect presentation order were always small and non-significant. We conclude that effect-density manipulations had substantial impact on contingency judgements, and cause-density manipulations less so. Moreover, it matters little which event (cause or effect) is seen first. These findings have implications for contingency, associative, probabilistic, and causal models of contingency judgement; primarily, that people may be more sensitive to the causal status of events than to their temporal order of presentation.
期刊介绍:
Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling.
QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form.
The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.