快讯:关于因果呈现顺序的互换性:线索和结果密度效应的实验测试。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Sahana Shankar, Nicola Byrom, Wijnand Adriaan Pieter Van Tilburg, Tim Rakow
{"title":"快讯:关于因果呈现顺序的互换性:线索和结果密度效应的实验测试。","authors":"Sahana Shankar, Nicola Byrom, Wijnand Adriaan Pieter 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, though these have been examined less often. Few studies have simultaneously examined both those 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 (η_p^2 =.55), which was qualified by a significant interaction between event type and density level (η_p^2 =.10) whereby effect density had greater impact than cause density. Experiments 2a and 2b found effects for effect-density (η_p^2=.60) and cause-density (η_p^2=.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 judgments, 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 judgment; 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":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EXPRESS: On the interchangeability of presentation order for cause and effect: Experimental tests of cue and outcome density effects.\",\"authors\":\"Sahana Shankar, Nicola Byrom, Wijnand Adriaan Pieter 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, though these have been examined less often. Few studies have simultaneously examined both those 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 (η_p^2 =.55), which was qualified by a significant interaction between event type and density level (η_p^2 =.10) whereby effect density had greater impact than cause density. Experiments 2a and 2b found effects for effect-density (η_p^2=.60) and cause-density (η_p^2=.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 judgments, 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 judgment; 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\":\"2024-11-05\",\"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}","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

摘要

对线索-结果或然学习的研究表明了结果-密度效应:当结果事件相对频繁发生时,参与者通常会高估或然事件。同样的线索密度效应也会出现,不过这种效应的研究较少。很少有研究同时考察了这些事件密度效应或操纵了事件的呈现顺序,从而限制了对这些现象是否具有共同基本原理的了解。为了弥补这些不足,我们报告了三项具有良好效应的实验。参与者在观看了一系列两个事件的配对后,对医疗的有效性进行了判断,这两个事件分别是原因(给予治疗与未给予治疗)和结果(病人康复与未康复)。实验 1 独立操纵了两个事件的密度。然后,我们操纵了原因和结果的呈现顺序,同时还操纵了结果密度(实验 2a)或原因密度(实验 2b)。实验 1 发现,事件密度具有较大的主效应(η_p^2 =.55),而事件类型与密度水平之间存在显著的交互作用(η_p^2 =.10),因此效果密度比原因密度的影响更大。实验 2a 和 2b 发现了效果密度(η_p^2=.60)和原因密度(η_p^2=.31)的影响。因果呈现顺序的影响总是很小且不显著。我们的结论是,效果密度操作对或然性判断有很大影响,而原因密度操作的影响较小。此外,先看到哪个事件(原因或结果)并不重要。这些发现对或然判断的或然模型、联想模型、概率模型和因果模型都有影响;主要是,人们可能对事件的因果状态比对事件呈现的时间顺序更敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EXPRESS: On the interchangeability of presentation order for cause and effect: Experimental tests of cue and outcome density effects.

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, though these have been examined less often. Few studies have simultaneously examined both those 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 (η_p^2 =.55), which was qualified by a significant interaction between event type and density level (η_p^2 =.10) whereby effect density had greater impact than cause density. Experiments 2a and 2b found effects for effect-density (η_p^2=.60) and cause-density (η_p^2=.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 judgments, 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 judgment; primarily, that people may be more sensitive to the causal status of events than to their temporal order of presentation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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