Florida International University.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Apr;147(4):597-602. doi: 10.1037/xge0000341.
In a recent article, Maes et al. (2016) report the results from 15 experiments in the blocking effect, all of which failed to replicate the basic phenomenon. Whereas Maes et al. did not dispute the reality of the blocking effect, they concluded that the effect is more difficult to obtain than what could be assumed from the literature and that we lack insight into its boundary conditions. This conclusion is incorrect, because contemporary associative learning theory both agrees with the authors' conclusion that blocking is parameter-dependent and it makes specific predictions about the experimental parameters likely to produce a small or no blocking effect. Ten of the 15 experiments presented by Maes et al. use exactly those parameters (same-modality stimuli for the compound AX), making their results completely unsurprising in the light of contemporary associative learning theory. The results from 3 other experiments are difficult to interpret because of a floor effect. A failure to replicate blocking in only 2 experiments is unsurprising and can be explained as the result of statistical variability or changes in experimental procedure. (PsycINFO Database Record
在最近的一篇文章中,Maes 等人(2016)报告了 15 个关于阻断效应的实验结果,这些实验都未能复制基本现象。虽然 Maes 等人并未质疑阻断效应的真实性,但他们得出的结论是,这种效应比文献中所假设的更难获得,而且我们对其边界条件缺乏了解。这个结论是不正确的,因为当代的联想学习理论既同意作者的结论,即阻断是依赖参数的,又对可能产生小的或没有阻断效应的实验参数做出了具体的预测。Maes 等人提出的 15 个实验中有 10 个使用的正是这些参数(复合 AX 的同种感觉刺激),因此根据当代的联想学习理论,他们的结果完全在意料之中。另外 3 个实验的结果则难以解释,因为存在地板效应。仅在 2 个实验中未能复制阻断效应并不奇怪,可以解释为统计变异性或实验程序变化的结果。(PsycINFO 数据库记录)