The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Forward and Backward Blocking in Human Contingency Judgement
Abstract
Three experiments investigated whether a process akin to Kamin's (1969) blocking effect would occur with human contingency judgements in the context of a video game. Subjects were presented with sets of trials on each of which they could perform a particular action and observe whether the action produced a particular outcome in a situation in which there was an alternative potential cause of the outcome. In Experiment 1 it was found that prior observation of the relationship between the alternative cause and the outcome did indeed block or reduce learning about the subsequent action-outcome relationship. However, exposure to the relationship between the alternative cause and the outcome after observing the association between the action and the outcome also reduced judgements of the action–outcome contingency (backward blocking), a finding at variance with conditioning theory. In Experiment 2 it was found that, just as is the case with forward blocking, the degree of backward blocking depended on how good a predictor of the outcome the alternative cause was. Finally, in Experiment 3 it was shown that the backward blocking effect was not the result of greater forgetting about the action–outcome relationship in the experimental than in the control condition. These results cast doubt upon the applicability of contemporary theories of conditioning to human contingency judgement.
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
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.87.6.532 · Cited by 3,023 · cited 1×
“For instance, Rescorla and Wagner (1972) predict this because the higher the probability of the outcome associated with A alone, the greater the associative strength accruing to A .”
BackgroundA 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
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
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
Causal Cognition in Human and Nonhuman Animals: A Comparative, Critical Review
Penn, D. C., & Povinelli, D. J. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085555 · Cited by 284
Sometimes-competing retrieval (SOCR): A formalization of the comparator hypothesis.
Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.3.759 · Cited by 278
The Cognitive Basis of Science
(2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517 · Cited by 276
Metadata
- Authors
- Shanks, D. R.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1985-02
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1b
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 0272-4995 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-1321
- OpenAlex
- W2071634225
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.14
- 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: Forward and Backward Blocking in Human Contingency Judgement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14640748508402082
- The paper
- Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and Backward Blocking in Human Contingency Judgement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508402082
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.