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