Abstract
The intentional theory of instrumental performance proposes that performance of an action is determined in part by a belief about its causal effectiveness in producing a desired outcome. At variancewith this notion, previous implicit learning experiments appear to have yielded dissociations between subjects’ performance and beliefs. In two experiments, subjects were given an opportunity to perform an action—pressing a key on acomputer keyboard—which was associated with an outcome on the computer screen according to a free-operant contingency. The subjects in one group were asked to judge the effectiveness of the action in causing the outcome, while those in a second group were asked to maximize their points score under a payoff schedule. In the first study, the effect of varying the contingency between the action and outcome was examined by keeping the probability of an outcome contiguous with an action constant and varying the probability of an outcome in the absence of an action. Performance and judgments showed a comparable sensitivity to variations of the instrumental contingency. In the second study, the delay between the action and the resultant outcome was varied. Increasing the action-outcome delay from 0 sec up to 4 sec produced a systematic decline in both causal judgments and:perfos~ mance relative to noncontingent, control conditions. These results are in accord with the intentional theory of performance, but they present difficulties for the notion of implicit learning.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berry, D. C., &Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 209–231.
Bolles, R. C. (1972). Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning.Psychological Review,79, 394–409.
Brewer, W. F. (1974). There is no convincing evidence for operant or classical conditioning in adult humans. In W. B. Weimer & D. S. Palermo (Eds.),Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. 1–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brody, N. (1989). Unconscious learning of rules: Comment on Reber’s analysis of implicit learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 236–238.
Chatlosh, D. L., Neunaber, D. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1985). Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students.Learning & Motivation,16, 1–34.
Dickinson, A. (1989). Expectancy theory in animal conditioning. In S. B. Klein & R. R. Mowrer (Eds.),Contemporary learning theory: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 279–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dickinson, A., &Charnock, D. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37B, 397–416.
Dickinson, A., &Shanks, D. R. (1985). Animal conditioning and human causality judgment. In L.-G. Nilsson & T. Archer (Eds.),Perspectives on learning and memory (pp. 167–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Green, R. E. A., & Shanks, D. R. (1990).On the existence of independent learning systems. An examination of some evidence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free operant behavior.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,34, 297–304.
Hammond, L. J., &Weinberg, M. (1984). Signaling unearned reinforcers removes the suppression produced by a zero correlation in an operant paradigm.Animal Learning & Behavior,12, 371–377.
Hartman, M., Knopman, D. S., &Nissen, M. J. (1989). Implicit learning of new verbal associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1070–1082.
Hayes, N. A., &Broadbent, D. E. (1988). Two modes of learning for interactive tasks.Cognition,28, 249–276.
Heyes, C., &Dickinson, A. (1990). The intentionality of animal action.Mind & Language,5, 87–104.
Irwin, F. W. (1971).Intentional behavior and motivation: A cognitive theory. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Lewicki, P. (1986). Processing information about covariations that cannot be articulated.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 135–146.
Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M., &Hoffman, H. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of complex procedural knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 523–530.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974).The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press.
Nissen, M. J., &Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from perfonnance.Cognitive Psychology,19, 1–32.
Perruchet, P., &Baveux, P. (1989). Correlational analyses of explicit and implicit memory performance.Memory & Cognition,17, 77–86.
Perruchet, P., Gallego, J., &Savy, I. (1990). A critical reappraisal of the evidence for unconscious abstraction of deterministic rules in complex experimental situations.Cognitive Psychology,22,493–516.
Perruchet, P., &Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction orexplicit fragmentary knowledge?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 264–275.
Perruchet, P., &Pacteau, C. (1991). The implicit acquisition of abstract knowledge about artificial grammar: Some methodological and conceptual issues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 112–116.
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 219–235.
Sanderson, P. M. (1989). Verbalizable knowledge and skilled task performance: Association, dissociation, and mental models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 729–747.
Sanderson, P. M. (1990). Implicit and explicit control of a dynamic task: Empirical and conceptual issues (Tech. Rep. No. EPRL-90-02). University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Engineering Psychology Research Laboratory.
Shanks, D. R. (1989). Selectional processes in causality judgment.Memory & Cognition,17, 27–34.
Shanks, D. R. (1991).Actions and the judgment of causality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., &Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality by human subjects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41B, 139–159.
Stadler, M. A. (1989). On learning complex procedural knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1061–1069.
Tarpy, R. M., &Sawabini, F. L. (1974). Reinforcement delay: A selective review of the last decade.Psychological Bulletin,81, 984–997.
Tolman, E. C. (1932).Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Irvington.
Tolman, E. C. (1959). Principles of purposive behavior. In S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 2, pp. 92–157). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, B. A. (1976). The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,26, 441–449.
Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., &Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1047–1060.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shanks, D.R., Dickinson, A. Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory & Cognition 19, 353–360 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197139
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197139