aitken et al (2001)
TRANSCRIPT
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 1/27
This article was downloaded by: [130.132.173.240]On: 16 April 2015, At: 06:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology
Section B: Comparative and
Physiological PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pqjb20
Re-examination of the
role of within-compound
associations in the
retrospective revaluation of causal judgementsMichael R.F. Aitken
a , Mark J.W. Larkin
a &
Anthony Dickinsona
a University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
Published online: 22 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Michael R.F. Aitken , Mark J.W. Larkin & Anthony Dickinson
(2001) Re-examination of the role of within-compound associations in the
retrospective revaluation of causal judgements, The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology,
54:1, 27-51
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713932745
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 2/27
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 3/27
THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 54B (1), 27 – 51
Re-examination of the role of within-compound
associations in the retrospective revaluationof causal judgements
Michael R.F. Aitken, Mark J.W. Larkin, and Anthony Dickinson
University of Cambridge, Cam bridge, U.K.
We investigated blocking and ret rospective revaluation of causal judgem ents using a scenario in
which food cues acted as potential causes of an allergic reaction as the outcome. In the block-
ing contingency, the treatment cues were either paired or unpaired with the outcom e prior to a
second stage in which sequential compounds of treatment and target cues were paired with the
outcome. The order of this compound and treatment training was reversed in retrospective
revaluation contingencies. When the interstimulus interval between the treatment and target
cues was un®lled on compound trials (Experiments 1 and 3), both blocking and retrospective
revaluation were observed in that the target cue trained in compound with the paired treatment
cue attracted lower causal ratings than the target cue trained in compound with the unpaired
treatment cue. By contrast, performing a mental arithmetic task using numerals presented
during the interstimulus interval had no effect on the magnitude of blocking but rendered retro-
spective revaluation unreliable (Experiments 2 and 3). These results provide further support for
accounts of revaluation based upon within-compound associations.
Dickinson, Shanks, and Evenden (1984) noted the similarities between the acquisition of
causal judgements and conditioning. When humans learn to judge the ef®cacy of cues in
causing an outcome during training episodes in which the cues are either paired or unpaired
with the outcom e, the cues are functionally equivalent to Pavlovian conditioned stimuli and
the outcome to the unconditioned stimulus. On the basis of this analogy, Dickinson et al.
(1984) suggested that the acquisition of causal judgements is controlled by associative
processes that are similar to those mediating conditioning (e.g., Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce,
1987; Pearce & Hall, 1980; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Wagner, 1981) with the judgement
based upon the strength of the association between the cue and outcome. This analysis is
supported by the fact that causal and predictive learning by humans exhibits many of the
phenomena of animal conditioning: Blocking (e.g., Chapman & Robbins, 1990; Dickinson
Requests for reprints should be sent to A. Dickinson, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of
Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, U.K. Email: [email protected]
This research was supported by a grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council of
the United Kingdom a nd was conducted within the MRC Co-operative on Brain, Behaviour, and N europsychiatry.
© 2001 The Experimental Psychology Society
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/02724995.htm l DOI:10.1080 /0272499004200002 9
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 4/27
28 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
et al., 1984; Kam in, 1969; Martin & Levey, 1991); overshadowing (Kamin, 1969; Pavlov,
1927; Price & Yates, 1993); the effect of signalling unpaired outcomes (e.g., Rescorla, 1984;
Shanks, 1989); relative validity effects (e.g., Vallée-Tourangeau, Baker, & Mercier, 1994; Van
Hamme, Kao, & Wasserman, 1993; Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968); super-
learning (Aitken, Larkin, & Dickinson, 2000; Rescorla, 1971); and conditioned inhibition
and learning under a negative contingency (e.g., Chapman & Robbins, 1990; Rescorla &
Holland, 1977; Williams, 1995).
Recently, however, a class of selective learning effects has been demonstrated in both ani-
mal conditioning (e.g., Miller, Hallam, & Grahame, 1990; Miller & Matute, 1996) and
human causal and predictive learning (Chapman, 1991; Dickinson & Burke, 1996; Shanks,
1985; Wasserm an & Berglan, 1998; Wasserman, Kao, Van Hamme, Katagiri, & Young, 1996;
Williams, Sagness, & McPhee, 1994) that requires retrospective revalua tion of the status of
a cue. In the ®rst stage of a typical retrospective design, illustrated in Table 1, two com-
pound cues, AB and CD, are paired with the outcome before the treatment cues from thesecompounds, A and C, are trained separately in a second stage. The key ®nding is that pre-
senting the treatment cue C without the outcome in Stage 2 (CD1C2 contingency)
enhances the ®nal causal rating of the target cue D relative to that of the target cue B whose
treatment cue A is paired w ith the outcome during the second stage (AB1A1 contingency).
Retrospect ive revaluation is problematic for standard associa tive theories because these
theories assume that a cue has zero associability on trials when it is not present and there-
fore preclude changes in its associative strength. And yet this is exactly the effect observed in
retrospective revaluation – -training the treatment cues A and C in Stage 2 leads to the
retrospective revaluation of the relative causal status of the target cues B and D.
To encompass retrospective revaluation within associative theory, Dickinson and Burke
(1996) suggested that within-compound associations are formed between the treatment and
target cues during the ®rst, compound stage of training so that the presentation of the treat-
ment cue alone in the second stage activates a representation of the target cue. Following the
suggestion by Van Hamme and Wasserman (1994 – -see also Markman, 1989; Tassoni, 1995)
TABLE 1
Design of experiments
C ontingencies Stage 1 Stage 2
Retrospective revaluation AB1, CD1 A1, C2
Blocking E1, G2 EF1, G H1
Filler IJ2, K 2 I2, KL2
Note: Compound cues were presented sequentially with
a 2-s ISI. In Experiment 1 a blank white screen was pre-
sented during this interval, whereas in Experiments 2 and
3, numbers were presented for mental addition during the
ISI of some of the compound trials and following cue
presentations on some of the treatment cue trials. See text
for m ore details.
Treatment cues: A, C, E, G.
Target cues: B, D, F, H.
Filler cues: I, J, K, L.
1: outcome; 2: no outcome.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 5/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 29
that absent cues have a negative associability, Dickinson and Burke (1996) argued that the
change in associative strength generated by a learning episode involving a cue representa-
tion, which is activated via a within-compound association, is the opposite of that produced
by a cue presentation. So, just as presenting a cue in the absence of a predicted outcome
reduces its associative strength, activating a representation of the target cue D in the absence
of the outcome during the second stage of the CD1C2 contingency enhances the associa-
tive strength of Cue D. Correspondingly, pairing the activation of the representation of Cue
B with the outcome in the second stage of the AB1A1 contingency should, if anything (see
Larkin, Aitken, & Dickinson, 1998), reduce the associative strength of the target cue B,
given that direct pairings of a cue presentation w ith a less than fully predicted outcome
enhances associative strength.
Dickinson and Burke (1996) investigated the role of within-compound associations in
retrospective revalua tion by manipulating the conditions for the formation of associations
between the treatment and target cues during the ®rst, compound stage of training. On thepremise that the formation of such associations bene®ts from the consistent pairing of a
treatment cue with the same target cue, they varied the consistency of these pairings. A
number of different speci®c cues played the role of the treatment cues A and C and of the
target cues B and D so that, for example, a particular B target cue could be presented in
compound with either the same A treatment cue on each compound trial or a different A
cue on each of these trials. Retrospective revaluation was observed when each treatment cue
was paired with the same target cue across a series of compound training trials in the con-
sistent condition. By contrast, the contingency between the treatment cues and the outcom e
during Stage 2 had no effect on the ratings of the target cues when each treatment cue was
paired with a different target cue on every trial of compound training in the varied condi-
tion. In other words, varying the pairings between the treatment and target cues abolished
retrospective revaluation, a ®nding that accords with the within-compound associative
analysis. Larkin et al. (1998) replicated the effect of the consistency of treatment – target cue
pairings on retrospective revaluation and provided direct evidence from a recognition test
that the consistency manipulation modulated the ability of the treatment cue to retrieve the
target cue.
It must be acknowledged, however, that the abolition of retrospective revaluation in thevaried condition is not an unambiguous prediction of the associative account. Although it is
the case that the varied condition should reduce the strength of the within-compound asso-
ciation between a given target cue and any particular treatment cue, this target cue is also
associated with more treatment cues in the varied than in the consistent condition. Therefore,
any particular target cue can be activated by the presentation of every treatment cue, albeit
via weak within-compound associations, in the varied condition and so has more opportuni-
ties to change its associative strength during the second stage when the treatment cues are
trained by themselves. In the consistent condition, by contrast, a particular target cue is acti-
vated by only the treatment cue with which it was paired, but in this case the within-
compound association, and hence the activation, is strong. Consequently, the prediction that
the varied condition reduces retrospective revaluation relative to the consistent condition is
predicated upon the assumption that any effect of associating a target cue with more than one
treatment cue is outweighed by the reduced strength of the within-compound associations
in the varied condition. The ambiguity of the prediction of associative theory about the
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 6/27
30 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
consistency manipulation encouraged us to seek further, converging evidence on the role of
within-compound associations in retrospective revaluation.
In the present experiments we sought to reduce the formation of within-com pound asso-
ciations by requiring the participants to perform an interfering task during compound train-
ing. The scenario and stimuli were those employed by Larkin et al. (1998) in which each
participant plays the role of an allergist who is required to judge the likelihood that different
foods cause an allergic reaction in a hypothetical patient. Thus, the foods are causal cues, and
the allergic reaction is the outcome. Participants base their judgements on training episodes
in which they are shown images of meals that the hypothetical patient has eaten. Figure 1
illustrates the sequence of events that can occur in compound trials with the treatment and
target cues. Each trial starts with a presentation of a food cue (e.g., ham or chicken), followed
after a short interstimulus interval (ISI) by a second cue (e.g., beans or cheese). On the termina-
tion of the second cue, the participant is prompted to make a response predicting whether or
not the outcom e, an allergic reaction , will occur on that trial. Finally, following the predictiveresponse, the participant is informed about whether or not the outcome occurs.
In the interference condition, three numbers are presented serially during the ISI, and
the participants are instructed to add them up and then remember the total throughout the
rest of the trial so that they can give this value when prompted to do so at the end of the
trial. Our assumption in designing this task is that the participants are engaged in complet-
ing the summat ion operations during the presentation of the second cue and that this
demand upon processing resources interferes with the form ation of within-compound asso-
ciations and thereby reduces retrospective revaluation relative to the control condition
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the sequence events on a compound trial with (top line) and without (bottom
line) the interference task. Illustrated is the condition in which the treatment cue precedes the t arget cue on com-
pound trials, and the allergic reaction outcome is either omitted (“no reaction’’— top line) or presented (bottom
line). See text for further details.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 7/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 31
without the interfering task. Although our selection of this interfering task was primarily
based on empirical g rounds, it is well established that even simple mental arithmetic enga ges
the central executive component of working memory (e.g., Logie, Gilhooly, & Wynn, 1994;
De Rammelaere, Stuyven, & Vandierendonck, 1999).
A unique prediction of the associative theory is that the role of within-compound asso-
ciations is restricted to retrospective revaluation contingencies and does not contribute to
other selective learning effects, such as blocking. A blocking-like contingency can be pro-
duced by reversing the two stages of training so that exposure to the treatment cues pre-
cedes training with the compound cues (see Table 1). Pairing a treatment cue E with the
outcome in the ®rst stage should also attenuate or block the acquisition of the associative
strength by the target cue F with w hich it is paired in the second stage relat ive to the target
cue H whose treatment cue G is presented in the absence of the outcome in the ®rst stage.
Associative theories (e.g., M ackintosh, 1975; Pearce, 1987; Pearce & H all, 1980; Rescorla &
Wagner, 1972; Wagner, 1981) offer a number of different mechanisms for blocking, none of which appeal to within-compound associations. The Rescorla – Wagner variable reinforce-
ment rule (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), for example, argues that increments in associative
strength are determined by the discrepancy between the combined strength of the cues
paired with the outcome and the total strength that can be supported by the outcome.
Pretraining the treatment cue ensures that this discrepancy is small when the target cue is
paired with the outcome during compound training, thereby attenuating the acquisition of
associative strength by the target cue.
Blocking contingencies provide a control condition against which to assess manipulations
that are predicted to affect retrospective revaluation selectively. The overall contingencies
between the target cues and the outcome are the same in the blocking and retrospective
revaluation conditions when aggregated across the two stages. Consequently, any variable
that selectively a ffects retrospective revaluation is not media ted by processes sensitive to the
overall contingency. Dickinson and Burke (1996) exploited this control by demonstrating
that the consistency of treatment – target cue pairings during compound training affected
retrospective revaluation but not blocking. We also included a blocking condition in the
present studies to assess whether any effect of the interference treatment is selective to
retrospective revaluation.The trial structure illustrated in Figure 1 differs from that employed in our previous
studies of retrospective revaluation (Aitken et al., 2000; Dickinson & Burke, 1996; Larkin
et al., 1998) not only in terms of the presence of the concurrent mental arithmetic task but
also in the use of serially presented cues with an ISI rather than simultaneously presented
cues. Consequently, in the ®rst experiment we determined whether retrospective revalua-
tion and blocking occur with serially presented cues in the absence of the interfering task.
Having established these phenomena with the serial procedure, the effect of the interfering
task on both retrospective revaluation and blocking was investigated in the last two studies.
EXPERIMENT 1
The design of the study is illustrated in Table 1. Each participant was trained concurrently
on the two retrospective revaluation contingencies, AB1A1 and CD1C2 and the two
blocking contingencies, E1EF1 and G2GH1. In addition, two ®ller contingencies,
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 8/27
32 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
IJ2I2 and K 2KL2, were also presented. The cues from these ®ller contingencies were
never paired with the outcome and served the function of ensuring that the participants
encoded the identity of the speci®c food cues by requiring them to discriminate those paired
with the outcome from those that did not predict the outcome. In addition, we varied the
order in which the target and treatment cues were presented on compound trials by using
two pairs of food cues in each contingency. The target was presented after the treatment cue
for one pair (see Figure 1), whereas the order of the two cues was reversed for the second
pair.
In summary, each participant was trained concurrently on six contingencies. If serial
compound training supports retrospective revaluation, the D target cues from the CD1C2
contingency should have been rated as more causally effective than the B target cues from
the AB1A1 contingency. Correspondingly, blocking would have been manifest if the H
target cues from the G2GH1 contingency attracted higher causal ratings that the F target
cues from the E1EF1 contingency.
Method
Participants and stimuli
The participants were 12 members of the University of Cambridge who each received £2 for
participating in the experiment. Pictures of foods accompanied by the name of the food acted as the
cues in each contingency. Two pairs of treatment and target cues were assigned to each of the six
contingencies, thereby generating twelve pairs of cues. The first and second cues presented duringcompound training were, respectively: Pear and bread; cake and cheese; chicken and coffee; garlic
and ham; ice cream and lemon; margarine and mushrooms; banana and peaches; pork pie and rice;
steak and tomatoe s; green beans and aubergine; jam and flapjack; and leeks and tea. Assignme nt of
these two cue pairs to each contingency was rotated so that each compound appeared in each con-
tingency across the 12 participants. For example, both the pear – bread pair and the c heese – cake pair
acted as the AB cue compounds for one participant, whereas the cheese – cake pair and the
chicken – coffee pair acted as the AB cue compounds, respectively, for the next participant, and so
on. Within the two pairs of cues assigned to a contingency, the treatment cue (e.g., A) occurred as
the first cue (e.g., pear) of the serial compound, and the target cue (e.g., B) occurred as the seco nd
cue (e.g., bread). This ordering was reversed for the second pair in which the target cue (e.g., cake)
was presented first and the treatm ent cue (e.g., cheese) was presented second within the serial com-
pound. Each food retained its role as a target or treatment cue across subjects, albeit in different
contingencies. As a consequence, the order of the treatment and target cues in the serial compound
was counterbalanced across cues, although this counterbalancing was confounded with the role
taken by each specific food cue.
The food pictures were derived from photographs in magazines and scanned into an Acorn
RiscPC700 computer so that they could be displayed centrally on a 40-cm viewable diagonal Ilyama
colour monitor over an area of 12 cm 3 12 cm. The name of the food was also presented below the
picture (see Figure 1). The occurrence of the outcome was indica ted by the words “Allergic Reaction’’displayed centra lly in red w ith a surrounding red zigzag gra phic and accompanied by a 1-s sound. The
absence of the outcome was indica ted by the words “No Reaction’’ displayed centrally in green with
a surrounding green box graphic and a different accompanying 1-s sound.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 9/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 33
Procedure
At the start of the experiment each participant was given a sheet of instructions which were also
read out by the e xperimenter.
This is an investigation into how people, in general, form links between events. It should beemphasised that this experiment is not a test of your personal abilities or skills. Your name w ill
not be linked with a ny of the data. If anything is unclear in the following instructions, ask me,
and I can repeat points to you, but to prevent in¯uencing your performance, I cannot provide
any additional inform ation. In this experiment, you w ill assess the likelihood that certain foods
are able to cause allergic reactions. The ®rst part of the experiment is to gauge your initial views
of some foods. This is to check whether you hold any particularly extreme opinions of the foods
which will be used in the tests, which may affect your later performance. Using the opinion
scale, you can express your opinions about the foods on a scale of 0 to 8. Imagine an ordinary
individual, who is completely unknown to you, has been fed the following foods. After each food
is displayed, referring to the opinion scale, type in what you think is the likelihood that eating
these foods will cause an allergic reaction. The imaginary individual may not have an allergic
reaction to any foods and you should base your initial ratings on the fact that most people do
not suffer from allergic reactions, and that you know nothing about this individual. The pur-
pose of this test is to ®nd out whether you have any strong opinions of certain foods that may
affect your later judgements.
The pictures and names of the eight treatment cues and the eight target cues from the experimen-
tal contingencies and all the ®ller cues were then displayed one at a time in random order. A row of
keys on the computer keyboard corresponded to an attached scale showing the likelihood of an aller-
gic reaction occurring, ranging from 0 (de®nitely not) through 4 (possibly) to 8 (de®nitely). U sing the
keyboard, participants rated each cue from 0 to 8 after each presentation.
Participants then received another instruction sheet, which was also read out to them:
Now im agine that you are an allergist, someone who tries to discover the cause of allergic reac-
tions in people. You have just been presented with a new patient, “Mr. X ’’, who suffers from
allergic reactions following some meals, but not others. In an attempt to discover which foods
cause Mr. X to have allergic reactions, you arrange for him to eat various foods for a meal on
each day, and observe if he has an allergic reaction or not. The meals that you give him are com-
posed of either one course of one food, or of two courses, each of one food, given to Mr. X one
after the other.
The computer will display to you the food he has for each meal. If the meal is composed of
only one course, only one food will be displayed. If the meal is composed of two courses, you
will see the food he had for the ®rst course followed by the food he had for the second course.
After each presentation, please predict with a “yes ’’ o r “no ’’ on the marked keys, whether you
think that your patient, Mr. X, will suffer an allergic reaction after eating this meal. You will
then be told by the computer whether or not an allergic reaction actually occurred.
Speed of response is not im portant, so take as much time as you need before responding.Obviously, at ®rst you will have to guess, as you don ’t know anything about your patient, but
hopefully, as you cont inue to be presented with meals, you will begin to learn which foods cause
allergic reactions.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 10/27
34 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
After this is complete, you will be asked to re-rate the foods, using the opinion scale above
the m arked keys, as before, but now you will rate the foods for their effect on “Mr. X ’’. You will
receive more information about that nearer the time.
Participants were then exposed to the two stages of training outlined in Table 1. To recap, two food
cues (e.g., pear and cheese) played the role of each contingency cue (e.g., A) and each ®ller cue (e.g.,
I). Stage 1 consisted of three blocks each of 18 trials. The blocks were composed of two presentations
of each of the two compound cues from the two retrospective revaluation contingencies (AB1 and
CD1), all paired with the outcome, and two presentations of each of the two ®ller compounds (IJ2)
presented without the outcome. Interspersed among these trials were single presentations of each of
the two treatment cues from the two blocking contingencies. One pair of treatment cues was paired
with the outcome (E1), whereas the other pair of treatment cues was presented without the outcome
(G2). In addition, each trial block contained a presentation of the two single ®ller cues without the
outcome (K 2). Stage 2 wa s identical to the ®rst stage except that the com pound cues were those from
the blocking contingencies and the treatment cue presentations those from the retrospective revalua-tion contingencies. Across the two stages, therefore, each participant received six presentations of each
cue compound from the four contingencies and three presentations of each treatment cue.
The sequence of events on compound trials is illustra ted in Figure 1. Each food cue was presented
for 1.5 s. On compound trials, the ®rst and second cues were separated by a 2-s ISI during which a
blank white screen was presented. To recap, for one of the pairs of food cues assigned to each cue
compound, the treatment cue was presented ®rst and the target cue second, whereas the order was
reversed for the other pair of food cues. Imme diately following the presentation of either the cue com -
pound or the treatment cue alone, the prompt “Allergy?’’ was presented centrally. Participants then
predicted whether the outcome would or would not occur by pressing the appropriate button on thekeyboard. Each predictive response was followed imm ediately by presentation of the appropriate out-
come screen for 2.5 s with accompanying auditory feedback. The outcome was represented by the
presentation of the words “Allergic Reaction’’ in red, with surrounding red border, whereas absence
of the outcome was represented by the central presentation of the words “No Reaction’’ in green with
surrounding green border. Following the presentation of an outcome screen, participants were
required to press the spacebar to present the next tra ining trial.
After the last trial of Stage 2, participants were given another sheet of instructions which we re also
read to them:
Now using the opinion scale above the numbered keys, as before, please re-rate your opinion of
the original foods that were presented to you, as to whether they cause allergic reactions. Now
your ratings will be for the effect of the foods on “Mr. X’’, in light of the data you have just seen.
The 24 (8 treatment, 8 targ et, and 8 ®ller) cues were then presented in random order, and partici-
pants typed in their responses, as before, on a scale of 0 to 8. Finally participants were thanked for
their cooperation, and any questions that they had were answered.
Results
Acquisition
Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of trials on which the participants predicted that the
cues would cause an allergic reaction by giving a “yes’’ response in each trial block. The
upper panel illustrates the predictive responses for the retrospective revaluation contin-
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 11/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 35
gencies and the corresponding ®ller cues, whereas the lower panel shows the equivalent datafor the blocking contingencies and the corresponding ®ller cues. In both cases, the predic-
tive responses adapted to the prevailing contingencies. All participants gave fewer “yes ’’
responses to the ®ller compound cues than to the compound cues from the retrospective
revaluation contingencies by the end of Stage 1 and learned to discriminate between the
treatment cues on the basis of their relationship with the outcome during Stage 2. All par-
ticipants also showed the corresponding discriminative responding in the blocking condi-
tion, learning to discriminate between treatment cues in Stage 1 and between compound
cues in Stage 2.
Target cues
The results of most interest concern the way in which training under the different con-
tingencies affected the ratings of causal effectiveness of the target cues. These ratings are
analysed by a three-factor analysis of variance in which the condition factor distinguishes
Figure 2. Experiment 1: Percentage of trials in each block on which participants predicted the allergic reaction.
Upper and lower panels display the percentages for the retrospective revaluation (AB1A1 and CD1C2) and
blocking (E1EF1 and G2GH1) contingencies, respectively, and their associated ®ller contingencies (IJ2I2 and
K 2KL2). D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 12/27
36 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
between the retrospective revaluation and blocking contingencies, and the contingency
factor distinguishes between the contingencies in which the treatment cue alone was paired
with outcome (AB1A1 and E1EF1) and those in which the treatment cue alone was
unpaired with the outcome (CD1C2 and G2GH1). Finally, the order factor contrasts
ratings when the treatment cue preceded the target cue on compound trials with those for
cues trained under the reverse order. Statistical reliability is assessed against a Type I error
rate of 0.05 or less.
The effect of order is signi®cant, F (1, 11) 5 10.52, M SE 5 5.57, re¯ecting the fact that
mean ra ting for the order in which the target cue was the second stimulus on the compound
trials (5.7) was higher than that for the order in which the target cue was the ®rst stimulus
(4.2). Importantly, however, this order factor interacts with neither of the other factors,
F s(1, 11) , 1.90, and consequently the ratings are collapsed across this variable for clarity
of presentation.
As the top panel of Figure 3 illustrates, both retrospective revaluation and blocking wereobserved in that the ratings for the target cues B and F from the contingencies in which the
treatment cues were paired with the outcome (AB1A1 and E1EF1) were lower than
those for the cues D and H from the contingencies in which the treatment cues were
unpaired with the outcome (CD1C2 and G2GH1), F (1, 11) 5 50.00, M SE 5 4.26. This
contingency factor does not interact with condition, F (1, 11) 5 1.39, however, suggesting
that the magnitudes of blocking and retrospective revaluation are similar. On average, the
Figure 3. Experiments 1 and 2: Mean causal ratings for the target cues from the retrospective revaluation
(AB1A1 and CD1C2) and blocking (E1EF1 and G2GH1) contingencies in Experiment 1 (top panel) and
Experiment 2 (bottom panel).
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 13/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 37
ratings from the retrospective revaluation and blocking conditions do not differ reliably,
F (1, 11) 5 3.21. The differences in the ratings of the target cues following training are not
compromised by initial biases. A comparable analysis of the initial ratings of the target cues
yields no signi®cant main effects nor any reliable interactions, largest F (1, 11) 5 4.10. The
mean initial ratings of target cues from the retrospective revaluation contingencies
(AB1A1 and CD1C2) are: 2.1 for B; 2.2 for D; and from the blocking contingencies
(E1EF1 and G2GH1) they are: 2.2 for F; 2.0 for H.
Treatment cues
A comparable analysis carried out on the mean ratings of the treatment cues shows a sig-
ni®cant main effect of contingency, F (1, 11) 5 144.97, M SE 5 6.90, re¯ecting the fact that
treatment cues presented with the outcome were rated higher than treatment cues presented
in the absence of the outcome. There are no other signi®cant main effects nor interactions,largest F (1, 11) 5 1.76. The mean treatment cue ratings for the retrospective revaluation
contingencies (AB1A1 and CD1C2) are: 7.5 for A; 0.5 for C; and for the blocking con-
tingencies (E1EF1 and G2GH1) they are: 6.9 for E; 1.0 for G.
Discussion
This study replicates previous demonstrations of the blocking and retrospective revaluation
of causal judgements and extends these phenomena to procedures in which the treatment
and target cues are presented sequentially. We detected no effect of the order in which these
two cues are presented on compound trials on the ma gnitude of blocking and retrospective
revaluation, although there might be grounds for expecting an effect of this variable in the
latter condition. To recap, according to the associative account of retrospective revaluation ,
the treatment cue activates a representation of the target cue through a within-compound
association, and this association was brought about by forward pairings with the treatment-
target cue order but backward pairings with the target – treatment cue order. There is exten-
sive evidence that forward pairings in general produce stronger associative learning (see
Ekstrand, 1966; M ackintosh, 1974, for reviews), and, consequently, the revaluation might beexpected to be greater with the treatment – target cue order than with the reverse order. It
should be noted, however, that backwards pairings can support excitatory conditioning
(Spetch, Wilkie, & Pinel, 1981) and hum an associative learning with both traditional paired-
associate procedure (Ekstrand, 1966) and pictorial stimuli more akin to those used in the
present studies (Gerolin & Matute, 1999).
Moreover, forward pairings may not be the optimal temporal relationship for establish-
ing within-compound associations. Using animal conditioning procedures that controlled
for generalization decrement, Rescorla (1980) reported that simultaneous pairings produce
stronger within-compound associations than do either forward or backward pairings. This
®nding raises the possibility that our participants effectively transformed both the forward
and the backward pairings into simultaneous pairings by rehearsing the identity of the ®rst
cue of the compound throughout the ISI. If this is so, strong within-compound associations
should be formed under both cue orders, and retrospective revaluation is anticipated in all
conditions. It should be noted, however, that the order of the cues did affect the overall
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 14/27
38 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
ratings for the target cues, with higher ratings being assigned when the target cues were
placed second in the compound. This effect probably re¯ects the difference in the tempora l
contiguity between the target cues and the outcome in the two orders, a factor that has been
shown previously to in¯uence causal judgement (e.g., Shanks, Pearson, & D ickinson, 1989).
EXPERIMENT 2
In Experiment 2, we attempted to interfere with the formation of within-compound associ-
ations by requiring the participants to perform a concurrent mental arithmetic task during
compound trials (see Figure 1). If retrospective revaluat ion, but not blocking, is mediated
by within-compound associations, the interference task should reduce the magnitude of retro-
spective revaluat ion relative to blocking. In order to evaluate th is prediction, the participants
were trained on the identical contingencies to those administered in Experiment 1 (see Table
1). The only difference was that they were asked to perform a mental arithmetic interfer-ence task during the ISI on compound trials and following cue presentations on treatment
cue trials. We presented the interference task during tra ining of the treatment cues alone as
well as during compound training in order to minimize any generalization decrement
between these two stages. If compound and treatment cue training differed with respect to
the presence of the interference task, we were concerned that the transfer of the associative
strength of the treatment cue between these two stages may have been compromised,
thereby producing a reduction in both blocking and retrospective revaluation.
Method
Participants and stimuli
Twelve University of Cam bridge undergraduates received £2 for participation in the study. The
stimuli and their counterbalancing and assignment to the role of treatment and target cues in the dif-
ference contingencies were the same as those in Experiment 1.
Procedure Once a gain, participants were given an initial rating test and then trained concurrently on the two
retrospective (AB1A1 and CD1C2) and the two blocking (E1EF1 and G2GH1) contingencies,
along with the two ®ller (IJ2I2 and K 2KL2) contingenc ies (see Table 1), before a ®nal ra ting test.
Sequential compounds of the treatment and target cues were paired with the outcome in one of the
stages, whereas the treatment cues were trained alone in the other stage, being either paired or
unpaired with the outcome. Experiment 2 differed from the ®rst study, however, in that participants
were presented with three numbers randomly selected between 1 and 9 during the 2-s ISI on com-
pound trials and during an equivalent 2-s period following presentation of the treatment cue on treat-
ment cue trials. Each number was presented for 0.57 s with an inter-number interval of 0.1 s.Following either the presentation of the second compound cue or the 2-s period after the treatment
cue alone, participants were prompted for their allergy prediction and received the appropriate feed-
back. Imm ediately after the feedback screen, the word “Total?’’ was presented centrally on the screen
(see Figure 1), and participants entered the total of the three numbers presented during that trial.
There wa s no time limit on m aking either response. The interference task was also presented on ®ller
cue trials.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 15/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 39
Two changes were made to the instructions to accommodate these procedural variations. The
opening line of the very ®rst set of instructions was changed to:
This is an investigation into how people, in general, form links between events, and how well
people can do two things at once.
Also, the following paragraph was added to the second set of instructions, immediately following the
second paragraph:
In addition to displaying the foods, the com puter will also display 3 numbers on each trial. Your
task is to add these numbers up. After you have predicted whether an allergic reaction occurs,
you will also be asked to type in the total of the 3 numbers you have just seen; try and be as
accurate as possible with your response.
In all other respects, the procedure wa s the same as that used in Experiment 1 .
Results
Acquisition
The upper and lower panels of Figure 4 illustrate the mean percentage of trials on which
participants predicted that the cues would cause an allergic reaction by giving a “yes ’’
response in each trial block for the retrospective revaluation and blocking contingencies,
respectively. In all contingencies the predictive responses adapted to the prevailing contin-
gencies, as in Experiment 1. The treatment cue discrimination s for the blocking cont ingen-
cies are somewhat more noisy than the comparable discriminations in Experiment 1 (see
Figure 2), but nonetheless did adapt to the prevailing contingencies. Examinat ion of dis-
criminative performance in the ®nal block of treatment cue training for the blocking con-
tingencies shows that during this training block 11 out of 12 participants responded “yes ’’
more often to cues presented with the outcome than to cues presented in the absence of the
outcome. All participants achieved this differentiation for the other discriminations.
Target cues
The bottom panel of Figure 3 illustrates the mean final ratings of the target cues. The
order of the target and treatment cues during compound training had no effects, either
main or interacting, on the ratings of the target cues, F s , 1, and consequently we have
collapsed the rating across this variable for presentation. A significant main effect of con-
tingency, F (1, 11) 5 13.41, M SE 5 7.16, confirms that on average the rating for the tar-
get cues B and F from the contingencies in which the treatm ent cues were paired with the
outcome (AB1A1 and E1EF1) were lower than those for the target cues D and H from
the contingencies in which the treatment cues were presented alone (CD1C2 and
G2GH1). What is also clear from Figure 3 and the significant Co ndition 3 Contingency
interaction, F (1, 11) 5 5.59, M SE 5 6.71, is that the magnitude of the blocking effect is
greater than that of retrospective revaluation. Indeed, analyses of the simple effects fail to
detect any reliable effect of contingency on the retrospective revaluation condition, F , 1,
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 16/27
40 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
whereas the blocking condition yields a significant effect of contingency, F (1, 11) 5 22.58,
M SE 5 5.61.The ®nal target cues ratings were not contaminated by pre-existing differences. An
equivalent analysis of the initial ratings reveals neither signi®cant main effects nor signi®-
cant interactions, largest F (1, 11) 5 4.03. Mean initial ratings of target cues are: For the
retrospective revaluation contingencies (AB1A1 and CD1C2), 2.3 for B and 1.7 for D;
and for the blocking contingencies (E1EF1 and G2GH1), 2.6 for F and 2.2 for H.
Treatment cues
The absence of reliable retrospective revaluation does not re¯ect a failure to learn the
treatment cue – outcome contingencies during Stage 2. The ®nal ratings of treatment cues in
all experimental contingencies were in¯uenced by their pairings with the outcome, with the
cues that had been paired with the outcome rated higher than those presented without the
outcome. Mean ®nal ratings of treatment cues are: For the retrospective revaluat ion contin-
gencies (AB1A1 and CD1C2), 6.6 for A and 2.1 for C; and for the blocking contingen-
Figure 4. Experiment 2: Percentage of trials in each block in which participants predicted the allergic reaction.
Upper and lower panels display the percentages for the retrospective revaluation (AB1A1 and CD1C2) and
blocking (E1EF1 and G2GH1) contingencies, respectively, and their associated ®ller contingencies (IJ2I2 and
K 2KL2).
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 17/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 41
cies (E1EF1 and G2GH1), 6.3 for E and 1.9 for G. There is a signi®cant main effect of
contingency on these ratings, F (1, 11) 5 33.48, M SE 5 14.12, but no other main effects and
interactions are reliable, largest F (1, 11) 5 2.01.
Discussion
The important ®nding is that the addit ion of the interference task different ia lly affected
retrospective revaluation and blocking. Whereas a reliable blocking effect was observed in
the presence of the interference task, performing this task reduced signi®cantly the ma gni-
tude of the retrospective revaluation relative to blocking and rendered the effect unreliable.
These ®ndings contrast with the comparable retrospective and blocking effects observed in
the absence of the mental arithmetic task in the ®rst study. Taken together the pattern of
ratings observed across the two experiments accords with the prediction of an associative
account of retrospective revaluation that appeals to within-compound associations on theassumption that the arithmetic task interferes with the formation of such associations dur-
ing compound training.
There are, however, other accounts of the function of the interference task. For example,
the presentation of the arithmetic task on trials with the treatment cue alone in Stage 2
could have interfered with learning the Cue A – -outcome relationship in the AB1A1 con-
tingency, thereby reducing retrospective revaluation. However, this mechanism anticipates
that the interference task should also have interfered with learning the Cue E – -outcome
association in the E1EF1 contingency and therefore should have produced a comparable
reduction in blocking. An alternative account appeals to the fact that the associative expla-
nation of retrospective revaluation assumes that the presentat ion of the treatment cue alone
in the second stage activates or retrieves a representation of the associated target cue.
Because we presented the interference task on the trials with the treatment cue alone, this
task could have reduced retrospective revaluation by interfering with the retrieval of the tar-
get cues during Stage 2 rather than by preventing the form ation of within-compound asso-
ciation during the ®rst stage. We examined this explanation in Experiment 3.
EXPERIMENT 3
The aims of this study were twofold. The ®rst was to determ ine whether the selective decre-
ment in retrospective revaluat ion produced by the arithmetic task in Experiment 2 is due to
the presence of the task on the compound trials or on the trials with the treatment cues
alone. In order to address this issue, we trained three groups of participants concurrently on
the retrospective revaluation and blocking contingencies outlined in Table 1, as in the pre-
vious studies. The training conditions for the control group were the same as those used in
Experiment 1 in that the participants were not required to perform the concurrent arith-
metic task. The participants in the compound group, however, performed the arithmetic
task during the ®rst stage of training, whereas those in the treatment group performed the
task during Stage 2. As a consequence, the compound group received the arithmetic task
during the compound training of the retrospective revaluation contingencies but not during
training of the treatment cues. To the extent that this task reduces retrospective revaluation
by interfering with the formation of within-compound associations, revaluation should have
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 18/27
42 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
been reduced for the compound group relative to the control group. Conversely, if the arith-
metic task interferes with the retrieval of the target cue representat ions during the training
of the treatment cues, the treatment group should have shown a smaller retrospective reval-
uation effect than the control group. Finally, on the basis of the previous studies we antici-
pated that the presence of the interference task should have had no effect on the magnitude
of blocking whether it occurred during the training of the treatment cues in the compound
group or during compound training in the treatment group.
The second aim was to assess directly the impact of the arithmetic task on the formation
of within-compound associations. After the participants had given their causal ratings, we
asked them to recognize the target cues that had been paired with each treatment cue dur-
ing compound training. To the extent that the arithmetic task interferes with the formation
of within-compound associations, the recognition of the associated target cues should be
reduced in the compound and treatment groups relative the control group.
Method
Participants and stimuli
Thirty-six University of Cam bridge undergraduates received £3 for participation in the study, and
were assigned at random to the three groups (n 5 12). The stimuli and their counterbalancing and
assignment to the role of treatment and target cues in the different contingencies were the same as
those used in Experiment 1.
Procedure
As in the previous studies, participants were given an initial causal rating test and then trained con-
currently on the two retrospective revaluation (AB1A1 and CD1C2) and the two blocking
(E1EF1 and G2GH1) contingencies along with the two ®ller (IJ2I2 and K 2KL2) contingen-
cies (see Table 1), before a ®nal causal rating test. Sequential compounds of the treatment and target
cues were paired with the outcom e in either the ®rst stage (retrospective revaluation contingencies) or
second stage (blocking contingencies), whereas the treatment cues were trained alone in the other
stage, being either paired or unpaired with the outcom e. As the order of the treatment and target cues
had no in¯uence on causal ratings in the previous studies, the treatment cues were always presented
as the ®rst course of the compound meals and the target cues as the second course.
Participants in the compound group were asked to perform the arithmetic task used in
Experiment 2 during the ®rst stage of training, in which they received the compound trials from the
retrospective revaluation contingencies and the treatment-alone trials from the blocking contingen-
cies, but not durin g the second stage in whic h they received the treatment-alone trials from the
retrospective revaluation contingencies and the compound trials from the blocking contingencies. By
contrast, we asked the treatment g roup to perform the arithmetic task during the second but not the
®rst stage of training. Therefore, these participants performed the addition task during the training
of the treatment cues from the retrospective revaluation contingencies and the compound cues from
the blocking contingencies. Finally, the arithmetic task was not presented to the control group at any
stage of training.
The differing procedures for each group required some m inor alterations in the instructions from
those employed in Experiment 2. Im mediately following the instructions about the arithmetic task, all
participants were informed that:
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 19/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 43
The instructions for each stage of the experiment will tell you whether numbers will be pre-
sented during that stage. Num bers will be presented on all trials, or no trials in each stage.
The participants were then informed prior to each stage that “The computer will display three
numbers imm ediately following the ®rst course of every meal during this stage’’ or “The computer
will not present any numbers during this stage’’.
Following the ®nal causal rating test, we gave a recognition test to assess whether the treatment
cues retrieved the target cues with which they were paired in the compound meals under the follow-
ing instructions:
You will now be presented with another selection of foods, each of which made up one of the
courses of the meals given to M r X. Your task is to remembe r what the other course was in that
meal. As each of the courses is presented, referring to the cards with the pictures of the foods
on them, please type in the number of the food which you think was the other course in the
meal given to Mr X . Speed of response is not important, so take as much time as you like torespond.
Prior to these instructions, we gave the participant two A4 cards, each showing 12 numbered pic-
tures of the food cues. The pictures were numbered in a manner that did not re¯ect their pairings,
with the following cues being numbered from 1 to 24, respectively: Aubergine, banana, bread, cake,
cheese, chicken, coffee, ¯apjack, garlic, green beans, ham, ice cream, jam, leeks, lemon, margarine,
mushrooms, peaches, pear, pork pie, rice, steak, tea, tomatoes.
The recognition test consisted of a single presentation, in random order, of each treatment cue and
the ®rst cues of each of the ®ller compounds. Presentation was similar to the causal ratings test withthe text presented above the cue changed to “Other course?’’. Therefore, on each trial, the part icipant
was required to type on the numeric keypad of the computer the number of the food cue, which was
displaye d o n t he cards, tha t they rec ogniz ed a s t he other c ourse of the m eal tha t include d the food
presented on the m onitor.
In all other respects, the procedure wa s the same as that used in Experiment 2 .
Results and discussion
We excluded the rat ings of two participants, both from the control group, who volunteeredthe information that they suffered from allergies themselves and that this had in¯uenced
their ratings.
Acquisition
The upper panel of Figure 5 shows the predictive responses to cues from the retrospec-
tive revaluation contingencies and the corresponding ®ller cues, whereas the lower panel
displays the equivalent data for the blocking contingencies. As in the previous studies, the
predictive responses adapted to the prevailing contingencies with all participants giving
more “yes’’ responses to compound cues presented with the outcome than to the com-
pounds presented in the absence of the outcome over the ®nal two blocks of each stage.
However, 5 of the 34 participants failed to achieve the same differentiation for one set of
treatment cues: two participants in the control group for the blocking contingencies, one
from the treatment group for the retrospective revaluation contingencies, and two from the
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 20/27
44 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
compound group — one for the blocking and the other for the retrospective revaluation
contingencies.
Target cues
We analysed the ®nal causal ratings of the target cues separately for the retrospective
revaluation and blocking contingencies by a mixed analysis of variance. The between-
participant group factor distinguishes between the ratings of the three groups, and the
within-participant factor of contingency distinguishes between the ratings of the target cues
trained in compound with the treatment cues that were paired and unpaired with the out-
come. As the top panel of Figure 6 shows, all groups exhibited a substantial blocking effect
in that the ratings for the target cues F from the E1EF1 contingency were substantially
lower than those for the target cues H from the G2GH1 contingency, F (1, 31) 5 59.66,
M SE 5 2.45. Importantly, the F ratio for the Group 3 Contingency interaction was less
Figure 5. Experiment 3: Percentage of trials in each block on which part icipants predicted the allergic reaction.
Upper and lower panels display the percentages for the retrospective revaluation (AB1A1 and CD1C2) and
blocking (E1EF1 and G2GH1) contingencies, respectively, and their associated ®ller contingencies (IJ2I2 and
K 2KL2). The percentages are shown separately for the control, compound, and treatment groups. D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 21/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 45
than one, suggesting that the magnitude of the blocking effect was comparable in all groups,
and separate contrasts yield a reliable effect of contingency for each group, smallest F (1, 31)
5 14.89, M SE 5 2.45.The effect of contingency is also reliable in a comparable analysis of retrospective reval-
uation, F (1, 31) 5 13.36, M SE 5 3.18. In contrast to the blocking contingencies, however,
the bottom panel of Figure 6 shows that the magnitude of retrospective revaluation effect,
as assessed by the difference in the ratings for cues B and D, is small in the com pound group
but relatively large in the treatment and control groups. Although the Group 3
Contingency interaction was not reliable, F (2, 31) 5 1.02, separate analyses revealed a
signi®cant effect of contingency for the treatment and control groups, smaller F (1, 31) 5
5.25, M SE 5 3.18, but not for the compound group, F (1, 31) 5 1.18.
Comparable analyses of the initial causal ratings reveal no signi®cant main effects and
interactions, F s(1, 31) , 2.37 and F s(2, 31) , 1.94. The mean initial ratings of target cues
for the control, compound, and treatment groups are, respectively: For the retrospective
revaluation contingencies (AB1A1 and CD1C2), 2.0, 2.8, 1.8 for B and 1.3, 2.4, 1.9 for
D; and for the blocking contingencies (E1EF1 and G2GH1), 1.9, 2.0, 1.7 for F and 1.8,
2.1, 1.8 for H.
Figure 6. Experiment 3: Mean causal ratings for the target cues from the blocking (Cues F and H , top panel) and
retrospective revaluation contingencies (Cues B and D, bottom panel) given by the control, compound, and treat-
ment g roups.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 22/27
46 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
Treatment cues
The treatment cues that had been paired with the outcome were rated higher than those
presented without the outcome. Mean ®nal ratings of treatment cues for the control, com-
pound, and treatment groups are, respectively: For the retrospective revaluation contingen-
cies (AB1A1 and CD1C2), 7.4, 7.1, 6.8 for A and 0.7, 1.3, 1.3 for C; and for the blockingcontingencies (E1EF1 and G2GH1), 7.0, 7.0, 7.2 for E and 2.1, 2.3, 2.1 for G. There is
a signi®cant main effect of contingency on these ratings in both the blocking and the retro-
spective revaluation conditions, smaller F (1, 31) 5 95.52, M SE 5 2.30; but no other main
effects and interactions are reliable, F s , 1.
T reatment target cue recognition
The recognition scores from a participant in the treatment group who misunderstood thenature of the recognition test are excluded from the presentation and analysis, which are
therefore based on the perform ance of the remaining 33 subjects. Although, on average, the
recognition performance was lowest for the participants who received the arithmetic task
during compound training – -the compound group for the retrospective revaluation contin-
gencies and the treatment group for blocking contingencies – -in neither set of contingencies
is there a signi®cant effect of group, largest F (2, 30) 5 1.23. On average the percentages of
correct recognition of the target cues paired with each treatment cue for the control, com-
pound, and treatment groups are, respectively: For the retrospective revaluation contingen-
cies (AB1A1 and CD1C2), 52.5, 35.4 and 50.0; and for the blocking contingencies(E1EF1 and G2GH1), 62.5, 47.9 and 40.9.
The failure to detect a reliable effect of the interference task on recognition of treat-
ment – target cue pairings that can be related to the causal judgements led us to re-examine
the relationship between recognition performance and causal learning using a post hoc cat-
egorization of participants. This categorization is based upon the relative recognition of the
retrospective revaluation and blocking compounds. Five participants showed equivalent
recognition scores for the retrospective revaluation and blocking contingencies and are
therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 28 participants, half (6 from thecompound group, 3 from the treatment group, and 5 from the control group) had higher
recognition scores for the cue compounds from the retrospective revaluation (RR) contin-
gencies (67.9%) than from the blocking (BLK) contingencies (35.7%) – -these participants
are designa ted Group RR .BLK. T he remaining participants (3 from the compound group,
6 from the treatment group, and 5 from the control group), designated Group BLK .RR ,
have higher recognition scores for cue compounds from the blocking contingencies (69.6%)
than for those from the retrospective revaluation contingencies (26.8%).
To the extent that retrospective revaluation is mediated by within-compound associations,
we anticipated that Group RR .BLK should have shown a larger revaluation effect thanGroup BLK .RR. By contrast, the magnitude of the blocking should not have differed
between groups if this effect is independent of the strength of the within-compound associ-
ations. Figure 7 shows that these predictions are ful®lled. There is a signi®cant Group 3
Contingency interaction for the retrospective revaluation contingencies, F (1, 26) 5 5.43,
M SE 5 2.49, and simple main effect analyses reveal that the target cue D from the CD1C2
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 23/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 47
contingency was rated more highly than the target cue B from the AB1A1 contingency by
Group RR .BLK, F (1, 26) 5 17.11, M SE 5 2.49, but not by Group BLK .RR, F , 1. By
contrast, the F ratio for this interaction is less than one for the blocking contingencies, and
the target cue H from the G2GH1 contingency was rated more highly than the target cue
F from the E1EF1 contingency by both groups, smaller F (1, 26) 5 18.19, M SE 5 2.49.
In summary, the present study suggests that the arithmetic task interferes with retrospec-
tive revaluation when it is performed during compound training but not during trials with thetreatment cues alone. Moreover, the loss of retrospective revaluation was more pronounced for
participants with relatively low recognition of the treatment – target cue compounds from the
retrospective revaluation contingencies, suggesting that the revaluation is mediated by w ithin-
compound associations. By contrast, a reliable blocking effect was observed whether or not the
arithmetic task was performed during either compound or treatment cue training, and the
magnitude of the effect was unrelated to the relative recognition scores for the blocking com-
pounds. Taken together, these ®ndings suggest that blocking, unlike retrospective revaluation,
is unaffected by the strength of the within-compound associations.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Experiment 1 replicated previous demonstrations of blocking and retrospective revaluation
in the acquisition of human causal judgements (Chapman, 1991; Dickinson & Burke, 1996;
Shanks, 1985; Wasserman & Berglan, 1998; Wasserman et al., 1996; Williams et al., 1994)
Figure 7. Experiment 3: Mean causal ratings for the target cues from the blocking (Cues F and H , top panel) and
retrospective revaluation contingencies (Cues B and D, bottom panel) given by Groups BLK .RR and RR .BLK.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 24/27
48 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
and extended these demonstrations to procedures in which the treatment and target cues are
presented in serial rather than simultaneous compounds. Although the serial order of these
cues during compound training had no detectable effect on the magnitude of either block-
ing or retrospective revaluation, performing an arithmetic interference task during the
inter-cue interval on compound trials abolished reliable retrospective revaluation in
Experiments 2 and 3.
We interpret this interference effect in terms of the role of within-com pound associations
within an associative account of retrospective revaluation. To recap, the presence of within-
compound associations enables the presentation of the treatment cue alone to activate a rep-
resentation of the associated target cue. If cue representations activated by within-com pound
associations have negative associability, the outcome conditions that normally support an
increm ent in associative strength will produce a decrement in the strength of the absent
target cue. Correspondingly, those outcome conditions that support an increment in associa-
tive strength for a presented cue will produce a decrement for an expected but omitted targetcue. These effects, either alone or in combination, serve to produce retrospect ive revaluation .
Thus, within this theory any operation that attenuates the formation of within-com pound
associations during training should also reduce the magnitude of retrospective revaluation.
We assume that the concurrent arithmetic task does this by interfering with the simultaneous
processing of the target and treatment cues during compound training, the condition that
favours the formation of within-com pound associations (Rescorla & Durlach, 1981). The
assessment of recognition of the treatment – target cue compound in the ®nal study provides
some support for this account. Although we could not detect a direct, reliable effect of the
interference task on recognition, the magnitude of the retrospective revaluation was smaller
for participants with relatively poor recognition of the compounds from these contingencies.
Without going into details, Dickinson and Burke (1996) considered the implementation
of negative associability within the context of three associative theories. The ®rst is the
modi®cation of the Rescorla – Wagner variable reinforcement rule (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972)
originally proposed by Van Hamme and Wasserman (1994) in which the negative associa-
bility is implemented by a negative learning rate parameter for that cue. In addition,
Dickinson and Burke (1996; see also Larkin et al., 1998) suggested a revision of Wagner’s
(1981) SOP theory, which draws a distinction between the state of a stimulus representationthat is activated directly and the state of one activated associatively. Dickinson and Burke
(1996) suggested that cue representations that are associatively activated support learning
but of the opposite type to that engaged by direct activation of a cue representation. Finally,
they also considered the implementation of negative associability in terms of negative acti-
vation of the cue unit of the connectionist learning system proposed by McLaren, Kaye,
and Mackintosh (1989), an application that has been developed by Graham (1999).
Whatever the relative merits of these different implementations of the role of within-
compound associations in retrospective revaluation, they all provide an account of blocking
that makes no appeal to such associations. In one way or another, these theories explain
blocking by assuming that an outcome predicted by a pretrained treatment cue will be less
effective in engaging excitatory associative learning than will an unpredicted outcome.
Thus, any procedure that minim izes within-compound associations, such as the presence of
an interference task on compound trials, should have a greater im pact on retrospective reval-
uation than on blocking.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 25/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 49
This is a crucial prediction that distinguishes associative accounts of causal learning
from the other main class of theory. This class is represented most recently by Cheng’s
(1997) Power PC theory, which provides an algorithm for interpreting contingency infor-
mation in terms of a concept of generative power (e.g., Michotte, 1946/1963) to yield
causal judgement. An important feature of this class of theory is that trial-order effects,
such as those that distinguish retrospective revaluation from blocking, lie outside the scope
of theory (see Cheng, 1997, pp. 381 – 384). Thus, in contrast to modi®ed associative
accounts, Power PC and related theories (e.g., Cheng & Holyoak, 1995) fail to address the
selective impact of the interference task in Experiments 2 and 3 and of the consistency of
treatment – target cue pairing in the Dickinson and Burke (1996) study on retrospective
revaluation but not blocking.
In summary, the present experiments provide further evidence for the role of within-
compound associations in retrospective revaluation and thereby point to a role for associa-
tive processes in causal learning. A variety of modi®ed associative theories offer processes of retrospective revaluation mediated by within-compound associations, and so are inseparable
on the present results. By contrast, non-associat ive models based upon the inferential inter-
pretation of contingency information provide no account of the differential effect of the
interference task on blocking and retrospective revaluat ion.
REFERENCES
Aitken, M.R.F., Larkin, M.J.W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Super-learning of causal judgements. Quarterly
Jour nal of Exper im ental Psycho log y, 53B , 59 – 81.Chapman, G.B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment. Jour nal of Expe rimen ta l
Psychology: Learning , Mem or y and C ognition, 17 , 837 – 854.
Chapman, G.B., & Robbins, S.J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment. M em or y and
Cognition , 18 , 537 – 545.
Cheng, P.W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104 ,
367 – 405.
Cheng, P.W., & Holyoak, K.J. (1995). Comp lex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contin-
gency, and prediction. In H.L. Roitblat & J.-A. Meyer (Eds.), Com parative approaches to cognitive science
(pp. 271 – 302). Cambridge: MIT Press.
De Rammelaere, S., Stuyven, E., & Vandierendonck, A (1999). The contribution of working memoryresources in the veri®cation of simple arithmetic sums. Psychological Research, 62 , 72 – 77.
Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of
causality judgements. Quarterl y Journa l of Experim en tal P sycholo gy, 49B , 60 – 80 .
Dickinson, A., Shanks, D.R., & Evenden, J.L. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of
selective attribution. Quarterl y Journa l of Experim en tal P sycholo gy, 36A , 29 – 50.
Ekstrand, B.R. (1966). Backward associations. Psychological Bulletin, 65 , 50 – 64.
Gerolin, M., & Matute, H. (1999). Bidirectional associations. Anima l L earn ing and Behavio r , 27 , 42 – 49.
Graham, S. (1999). Retrospective revaluation and inhibitory associations: Does perceptual l earning modu-
late perception of the contingencies between events? Quarterl y Journa l of Expe rimen tal Psycho log y, 52B ,
159 –
185.Kamin, L.J. (1969). Selective association and conditioning. In N.J. Mackintosh & W.K. Honig (Eds.),
Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 42 – 64). Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.
Larkin, M.J.W., Aitken, M.R.F., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments
under positive and negative contingencies. Journal of Exper im ental Psycho log y: Learning , M em or y and
Cognition , 24 , 1331 – 1352.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 26/27
50 AITKEN, LARKIN, DICKINSON
Logie, R.H., Gilhooly, K.J., & Wynn, V. (1994). Counting on working memory i n arithmetic problem so lv-
ing. M em or y and Cog nit io n, 22 , 395 – 410.
Mackintosh, N.J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning . London: Academic Press.
Mackintosh, N.J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.
Psychological Review, 82 , 276 – 298.
Markman, A.B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck and Bower (1988). Jour na l of Experim en tal Psycho log y: Gen eral , 118 , 417 – 421.
Martin, I., & Levey, A.B. (1991). Blocking observed in human eyelid conditioning. Quarterly Jour nal of
Experimental Psychology, 43B , 233 – 255.
McLaren, I.P.L., Kaye, H., & Mackintosh, N.J. (1989). An associative theory of the representation of stim-
uli: Applications to perceptual learning and latent inhibition. In R.G.M. Morris (Ed.), Parallel distributed
proces sin g — implications for psychology and neurobiology (pp. 102 – 130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causal i ty. London: Methuen. (Original work published 1946).
Miller, R.R., Hallam, S.C., & Grahame, N.J. (1990). In¯ation of comparator stimuli following CS training.
Animal Lear ning and Behavior , 18 , 434 – 443.
Miller, R.R., & Matute, H. (1996). Biological signi®cance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of
a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment. Jour na l of Experiment
Psychology: G eneral , 125 , 370 – 386.
Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned re¯exes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J.M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian condition ing. Psychological Review, 94 ,
61 – 73.
Pearce, J.M., & Hall, G. (1980) . A model for Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of con-
ditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87 , 532 – 552.
Price, P.C., & Yates, J.F. (1993). Judgmental overshadowing: Further evidence for cue interaction in contin-
gency judgment. Jour nal of Experim ental Psycho log y: Learnin g , M emory and Cognition, 21 , 1639 – 1655.
Rescorla, R.A. (1971). Variations in effectiveness of reinforcement following prior inhibitory conditioning.
Learning and M otivation, 2, 113 – 123.Rescorla, R.A. (1980). Simultaneous and successive assocations in sensory preconditioning. Jour nal of
Experimental Psychology: Anim al Behavior P rocesses, 6, 207 – 216.
Rescorla, R.A. (1984). Signaling intertrial shocks attenuates their negative effect on conditioned suppres-
sion. Bulletin of the Psychonom ic Society, 22 , 225 – 228.
Rescorla, R.A., & Durlach, P.J. (1981). Within-event learning in Pavlovian conditioning. In N.E. Spear &
R.R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: memory mechanisms (pp. 81 – 111). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rescorla, R.A., & Holland, P.C. (1977). Associations in Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Learning and
M otiva tio n , 8 , 429 – 447.
Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectivenessof reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A.H. Black & W.F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II:
Current research and theory (pp. 64 – 99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Shanks, D.R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgments. Quarterly Jour na l
of Experimental Psychology , 37 , 1 – 21.
Shanks, D.R. (1989). Selectional processes in causality judgment. M em or y and Cog nit io n, 17 , 27 – 34.
Shanks, D.R., Pearson, S.M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality
by human subjects. Quarterly Jour nal of Experim en tal Psycho log y, 41 , 139 – 159.
Spetch, M.L., Wilkie, D.M., & Pinel, J.P.J. (1981). Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical
evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 89 , 163 – 175.
Tassoni, C.J. (1995). The least mean squares network with information coding: A model of cue learning. Jour na l of Experim en tal Psycho log y: Learnin g , M em or y and Cognition, 21 , 139 – 149.
Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Baker, A.G., & Mercier, P. (1994). Discounting in causality and covariation judg-
ments. Quarter ly Jo urna l of Expe rimen tal Psycho log y, 47 , 151 – 171.
Van Ha mme, L.J., Kao, S.F., & Wasserm an, E.A. (1993). Judging interevent relations: From cause to effect
and from effect to cause. Mem or y and C ognition, 21 , 802 – 808.
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5
7/25/2019 Aitken Et Al (2001)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aitken-et-al-2001 27/27
WITHIN-COMPOUND ASSOCIATIONS 51
Van Hamme, L.J., & Wasserma n, E.A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgment: The role of nonpre-
sentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and M otivation, 25 , 127 – 151.
Wagner, A.R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N.E. Spear and
R.R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5 – 47). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wagner, A.R., Logan, F.A., Haberlandt, K. , & Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection in animal discriminationlearning. Jour nal of Exper im ental Psycho log y, 76 , 171 – 180.
Wasserman, E.A. , & Berglan, L.R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human
causal judgment: The role of within-compound associations. Quar terly Journal of Experimenta l
Psychology, 51B , 121 – 138.
Wasserman, E.A., Kao, S.-F., Van Hamm e, L.J., Kata giri, M., & Young, M.E. (1996). Causation and asso-
ciation. In D.R. Shanks, K.J. H olyoak, & D.L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation:
Causal learning (Vol. 34, pp. 207 – 264). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Williams, D.A. (1995). Forms of inhibition in animal and human learning. Jour na l of Expe rimen ta l
Psychology: Animal B ehavior P rocesses, 21 , 129 – 142.
Williams, D.A., Sagness, K.E., & McPhee, J.E. (1994). Con®gural and elemental strategies in predictive
learning. Jour nal of Exper im ental Psycho log y: Learn in g , M em or y and Cognition, 20 , 694 – 70.
M anuscr ipt rece ived 27 M arch 2000
Accepted revision rece ived 23 June 2000
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ ] a t 0 6 : 2 5 1 6 A p r i l 2 0 1 5