Loading…
Theory Protection in Associative Learning: Humans Maintain Certain Beliefs in a Manner That Violates Prediction Error
Three experiments were conducted to investigate a possible role for certainty in human causal learning. In these experiments, human participants were initially trained with a set of cues, each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome. In a subsequent training stage, 2 of these...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes 2020-04, Vol.46 (2), p.151-161 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a415t-8b2347ae640e23febf4a16808c19036b20418b4ecfe37377599cd6a25187b6e33 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 161 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 151 |
container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Spicer, Stuart G. Mitchell, Chris J. Wills, Andy J. Jones, Peter M. |
description | Three experiments were conducted to investigate a possible role for certainty in human causal learning. In these experiments, human participants were initially trained with a set of cues, each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome. In a subsequent training stage, 2 of these cues were trained in a causal compound, and the change in associative strength for each of the cues was compared, using a procedure based on Rescorla (2001). In each experiment, the cues differed in both their causal certainty (on the part of participants) and size of their prediction error (with respect to the outcome). The cue with the larger prediction error was always the cue with the more certain causal status. According to established prediction error models (Bush & Mosteller, 1951; Rescorla, 2001; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), a larger prediction error should result in a greater updating of associative strength. However, the opposite was observed, as participants always learned more about the cue with the smaller prediction error. A plausible explanation is that participants engaged in a form of theory protection, in which they were resistant to updating their existing beliefs about cues with a certain causal status. Instead, participants appeared to attribute outcomes to cues with a comparatively uncertain causal status, in an apparent violation of prediction error. The potential role of attentional processes (Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce & Hall, 1980) in explaining these results is also discussed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1037/xan0000225 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2298147044</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2298147044</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a415t-8b2347ae640e23febf4a16808c19036b20418b4ecfe37377599cd6a25187b6e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1rVDEUhoMottRu_AEScCPKaL5zr7t2qFYY0cXoNpybOdem3EnGJFecf2_GqRVcGAgnkCfPCecl5ClnrzmT9s1PiKwtIfQDciqk6BedMurh_VmbE3Jeym1jOBe60-wxOZFca2OUOCXz-gZT3tPPOVX0NaRIQ6QXpSQfoIYfSFcIOYb47S29nrcQC_0IIda26RLz73qJU8CxHB5Cu40RM13fQKVfQ5qgYml23ISj_SrnlJ-QRyNMBc_v6hn58u5qvbxerD69_7C8WC1AcV0X3SCksoBGMRRyxGFUwE3HOs97Js0gmOLdoNCPKK20Vve93xgQmnd2MCjlGXlx9O5y-j5jqW4bisdpgohpLk6IvuPKMqUa-vwf9DbNObbfOSG73gpj27z_R4neqjZue2j78kj5nErJOLpdDlvIe8eZO6Tm_qbW4Gd3ynnY4uYe_ZNRA14dAdiB25W9h1yDn7D4OWeM9SBzyjjhuObyF_eLn9Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2297445673</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Theory Protection in Associative Learning: Humans Maintain Certain Beliefs in a Manner That Violates Prediction Error</title><source>PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Spicer, Stuart G. ; Mitchell, Chris J. ; Wills, Andy J. ; Jones, Peter M.</creator><contributor>Delamater, Andrew R</contributor><creatorcontrib>Spicer, Stuart G. ; Mitchell, Chris J. ; Wills, Andy J. ; Jones, Peter M. ; Delamater, Andrew R</creatorcontrib><description>Three experiments were conducted to investigate a possible role for certainty in human causal learning. In these experiments, human participants were initially trained with a set of cues, each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome. In a subsequent training stage, 2 of these cues were trained in a causal compound, and the change in associative strength for each of the cues was compared, using a procedure based on Rescorla (2001). In each experiment, the cues differed in both their causal certainty (on the part of participants) and size of their prediction error (with respect to the outcome). The cue with the larger prediction error was always the cue with the more certain causal status. According to established prediction error models (Bush & Mosteller, 1951; Rescorla, 2001; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), a larger prediction error should result in a greater updating of associative strength. However, the opposite was observed, as participants always learned more about the cue with the smaller prediction error. A plausible explanation is that participants engaged in a form of theory protection, in which they were resistant to updating their existing beliefs about cues with a certain causal status. Instead, participants appeared to attribute outcomes to cues with a comparatively uncertain causal status, in an apparent violation of prediction error. The potential role of attentional processes (Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce & Hall, 1980) in explaining these results is also discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2329-8456</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2329-8464</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/xan0000225</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31556642</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Associative learning ; Associative Processes ; Attitudes ; Causality ; Female ; Human ; Learning ; Male ; Prediction Errors ; Predictions ; Training ; Uncertainty</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes, 2020-04, Vol.46 (2), p.151-161</ispartof><rights>2019 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2019, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Apr 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a415t-8b2347ae640e23febf4a16808c19036b20418b4ecfe37377599cd6a25187b6e33</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-7803-8469</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31556642$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Delamater, Andrew R</contributor><creatorcontrib>Spicer, Stuart G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Chris J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wills, Andy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Peter M.</creatorcontrib><title>Theory Protection in Associative Learning: Humans Maintain Certain Beliefs in a Manner That Violates Prediction Error</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn</addtitle><description>Three experiments were conducted to investigate a possible role for certainty in human causal learning. In these experiments, human participants were initially trained with a set of cues, each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome. In a subsequent training stage, 2 of these cues were trained in a causal compound, and the change in associative strength for each of the cues was compared, using a procedure based on Rescorla (2001). In each experiment, the cues differed in both their causal certainty (on the part of participants) and size of their prediction error (with respect to the outcome). The cue with the larger prediction error was always the cue with the more certain causal status. According to established prediction error models (Bush & Mosteller, 1951; Rescorla, 2001; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), a larger prediction error should result in a greater updating of associative strength. However, the opposite was observed, as participants always learned more about the cue with the smaller prediction error. A plausible explanation is that participants engaged in a form of theory protection, in which they were resistant to updating their existing beliefs about cues with a certain causal status. Instead, participants appeared to attribute outcomes to cues with a comparatively uncertain causal status, in an apparent violation of prediction error. The potential role of attentional processes (Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce & Hall, 1980) in explaining these results is also discussed.</description><subject>Associative learning</subject><subject>Associative Processes</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Causality</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Prediction Errors</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><issn>2329-8456</issn><issn>2329-8464</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1rVDEUhoMottRu_AEScCPKaL5zr7t2qFYY0cXoNpybOdem3EnGJFecf2_GqRVcGAgnkCfPCecl5ClnrzmT9s1PiKwtIfQDciqk6BedMurh_VmbE3Jeym1jOBe60-wxOZFca2OUOCXz-gZT3tPPOVX0NaRIQ6QXpSQfoIYfSFcIOYb47S29nrcQC_0IIda26RLz73qJU8CxHB5Cu40RM13fQKVfQ5qgYml23ISj_SrnlJ-QRyNMBc_v6hn58u5qvbxerD69_7C8WC1AcV0X3SCksoBGMRRyxGFUwE3HOs97Js0gmOLdoNCPKK20Vve93xgQmnd2MCjlGXlx9O5y-j5jqW4bisdpgohpLk6IvuPKMqUa-vwf9DbNObbfOSG73gpj27z_R4neqjZue2j78kj5nErJOLpdDlvIe8eZO6Tm_qbW4Gd3ynnY4uYe_ZNRA14dAdiB25W9h1yDn7D4OWeM9SBzyjjhuObyF_eLn9Y</recordid><startdate>20200401</startdate><enddate>20200401</enddate><creator>Spicer, Stuart G.</creator><creator>Mitchell, Chris J.</creator><creator>Wills, Andy J.</creator><creator>Jones, Peter M.</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7803-8469</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200401</creationdate><title>Theory Protection in Associative Learning: Humans Maintain Certain Beliefs in a Manner That Violates Prediction Error</title><author>Spicer, Stuart G. ; Mitchell, Chris J. ; Wills, Andy J. ; Jones, Peter M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a415t-8b2347ae640e23febf4a16808c19036b20418b4ecfe37377599cd6a25187b6e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Associative learning</topic><topic>Associative Processes</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Causality</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Prediction Errors</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Spicer, Stuart G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Chris J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wills, Andy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Peter M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Spicer, Stuart G.</au><au>Mitchell, Chris J.</au><au>Wills, Andy J.</au><au>Jones, Peter M.</au><au>Delamater, Andrew R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Theory Protection in Associative Learning: Humans Maintain Certain Beliefs in a Manner That Violates Prediction Error</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn</addtitle><date>2020-04-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>151</spage><epage>161</epage><pages>151-161</pages><issn>2329-8456</issn><eissn>2329-8464</eissn><abstract>Three experiments were conducted to investigate a possible role for certainty in human causal learning. In these experiments, human participants were initially trained with a set of cues, each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome. In a subsequent training stage, 2 of these cues were trained in a causal compound, and the change in associative strength for each of the cues was compared, using a procedure based on Rescorla (2001). In each experiment, the cues differed in both their causal certainty (on the part of participants) and size of their prediction error (with respect to the outcome). The cue with the larger prediction error was always the cue with the more certain causal status. According to established prediction error models (Bush & Mosteller, 1951; Rescorla, 2001; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), a larger prediction error should result in a greater updating of associative strength. However, the opposite was observed, as participants always learned more about the cue with the smaller prediction error. A plausible explanation is that participants engaged in a form of theory protection, in which they were resistant to updating their existing beliefs about cues with a certain causal status. Instead, participants appeared to attribute outcomes to cues with a comparatively uncertain causal status, in an apparent violation of prediction error. The potential role of attentional processes (Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce & Hall, 1980) in explaining these results is also discussed.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>31556642</pmid><doi>10.1037/xan0000225</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7803-8469</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2329-8456 |
ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes, 2020-04, Vol.46 (2), p.151-161 |
issn | 2329-8456 2329-8464 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2298147044 |
source | PsycARTICLES |
subjects | Associative learning Associative Processes Attitudes Causality Female Human Learning Male Prediction Errors Predictions Training Uncertainty |
title | Theory Protection in Associative Learning: Humans Maintain Certain Beliefs in a Manner That Violates Prediction Error |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T22%3A37%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Theory%20Protection%20in%20Associative%20Learning:%20Humans%20Maintain%20Certain%20Beliefs%20in%20a%20Manner%20That%20Violates%20Prediction%20Error&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20Animal%20behavior%20processes&rft.au=Spicer,%20Stuart%20G.&rft.date=2020-04-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=151&rft.epage=161&rft.pages=151-161&rft.issn=2329-8456&rft.eissn=2329-8464&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/xan0000225&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2298147044%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a415t-8b2347ae640e23febf4a16808c19036b20418b4ecfe37377599cd6a25187b6e33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2297445673&rft_id=info:pmid/31556642&rfr_iscdi=true |