The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Judgement of Act-Outcome Contingency: The Role of Selective Attribution
Abstract
In the first experiment subjects were presented with a number of sets of trials on each of which they could perform a particular action and observe the occurrence of an outcome in the context of a video game. The contingency between the action and outcome was varied across the different sets of trials. When required to judge the effectiveness of the action in controlling the outcome during a set of trials, subjects assigned positive ratings for a positive contingency and negative ratings for a negative contingency. Furthermore, the magnitude of the ratings was related systematically to the strength of the actual contingency. With a fixed probability of an outcome given the action, judgements of positive contingencies decreased as the likelihood that the outcome would occur without the action was raised. Correspondingly, the absolute value of ratings of negative contingencies was increased both by an increment in the probability of the outcome in the absence of the action and by a decrement in the probability of the outcome following the action. A systematic bias was observed, however, in that positive judgements were given under a non-contingent relationship when the outcome frequency was relatively high. However, this bias could be reduced by giving extended exposure to the non-contingent schedule (Experiment 2). This pattern of contingency judgements can be explained if it is assumed that a process of selective attribution operates, whereby people are less likely to attribute an outcome to some potential target cause if another effective cause is present. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated the operation of this process by showing that initially establishing another agent as an effective cause of the outcome subsequently reduced or blocked the extent to which the subjects attributed the outcome to the action. Finally, we argue that the pattern and bias in contingency judgements based upon interactions with a causal process can be explained in terms of contemporary conditioning models of associative learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rescorla, R. A. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,342
Simultaneous Statistical Inference
Miller, R. G. (1981) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8122-8 · Cited by 5,604
Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory.
Black, A. H., & Prokasy, W. F. (1972) · Appleton-Century-Crofts eBooks · Cited by 4,449
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.87.6.532 · Cited by 3,023 · cited 1×
“The overall purpose of these studies was to establish the general case that theories that have been developed in the context of animal conditioning (e.g. Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce and Hall, 1980; Rescorla and Wagner, 1972) merit serious consideration as accounts of the way in which we make judgements about the effectiv…”
BackgroundMiller, G. A., & Cantor, N. (1982) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1982.1.1.83 · Cited by 2,816
A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0076778 · Cited by 2,733
Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441 · Cited by 1,692
Simultaneous Statistical Inference
Weeks, D. L., & Miller, R. G. (1967) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528445 · Cited by 1,361
Causal schemata and the attribution process
Kelley, H. H. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,093
Cited by
From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.
Cheng, P. W. (1997) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.104.2.367 · Cited by 1,206
Alloy, L. B., & Tabachnik, N. (1984) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.91.1.112 · Cited by 608
Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model.
Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.1.75 · Cited by 503
Within Compound Associations Mediate the Retrospective Revaluation of Causality Judgements
Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B · doi:10.1080/713932614 · Cited by 416
Self-citationLe Pelley, M. E. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B · doi:10.1080/02724990344000141 · Cited by 360
Metadata
- Authors
- Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., & Evenden, J.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1984-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-50
- ISSN
- 0272-4987 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0740
- OpenAlex
- W2241156191
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 3.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Judgement of Act-Outcome Contingency: The Role of Selective Attribution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14640748408401502
- The paper
- Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., & Evenden, J. (1984). Judgement of Act-Outcome Contingency: The Role of Selective Attribution. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748408401502
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.