Aitken M R, Larkin M J, Dickinson A
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, U.K.
Q J Exp Psychol B. 2001 Feb;54(1):27-51. doi: 10.1080/02724990042000029.
We investigated blocking and retrospective revaluation of causal judgements using a scenario in which food cues acted as potential causes of an allergic reaction as the outcome. In the blocking contingency, the treatment cues were either paired or unpaired with the outcome 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 unfilled 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 retrospective revaluation unreliable (Experiments 2 and 3). These results provide further support for accounts of revaluation based upon within-compound associations.
我们使用一种情景来研究因果判断的阻断和回顾性重评估，在该情景中，食物线索作为过敏反应这一结果的潜在原因。在阻断情境中，在第二阶段之前，治疗线索要么与结果配对，要么不与结果配对，在第二阶段，治疗线索和目标线索的顺序组合与结果配对。在回顾性重评估情境中，这种组合和治疗训练的顺序是相反的。当在组合试验中治疗线索和目标线索之间的刺激间隔未填充时（实验1和3），观察到了阻断和回顾性重评估，即与配对治疗线索组合训练的目标线索比与未配对治疗线索组合训练的目标线索获得的因果评分更低。相比之下，在刺激间隔期间使用呈现的数字执行心算任务对阻断程度没有影响，但使回顾性重评估不可靠（实验2和3）。这些结果为基于组合内关联的重评估解释提供了进一步支持。
