Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSpicer, S
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, C
dc.contributor.authorWills, A
dc.contributor.authorBlake, K
dc.contributor.authorJones, P
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-03T16:09:40Z
dc.date.issued2022-02
dc.identifier.issn0097-7403
dc.identifier.issn2329-8464
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/18439
dc.description.abstract

Theories of associative learning often propose that learning is proportional to prediction error, or the difference between expected events and those that occur. Spicer et al. (2020) suggested an alternative, that humans might instead selectively attribute surprising outcomes to cues that they are not confident about, to maintain cue-outcome associations about which they are more confident. Spicer et al. reported three predictive learning experiments, the results of which were consistent with their proposal ("theory protection") rather than a prediction error account (Rescorla, 2001). The four experiments reported here further test theory protection against a prediction error account. Experiments 3 and 4 also test the proposals of Holmes et al. (2019), who suggested a function mapping learning to performance that can explain Spicer et al.'s results using a prediction-error framework. In contrast to the previous study, these experiments were based on inhibition rather than excitation. Participants were trained with a set of cues (represented by letters), each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome (represented by + or -). Following this, a cue that previously caused the outcome (A+) was placed in compound with another cue (B) with an ambiguous causal status (e.g., a novel cue in Experiment 1). This compound (AB-) did not cause the outcome. Participants always learned more about B in the second training phase, despite A always having the greater prediction error. In Experiments 3 and 4, a cue with no apparent prediction error was learned about more than a cue with a large prediction error. Experiment 4 tested participants' relative confidence about the causal status of cues A and B prior to the AB- stage, producing findings that are consistent with theory protection and inconsistent with the predictions of Rescorla, and Holmes et al. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

dc.format.extent1-16
dc.format.mediumPrint
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAmerican Psychological Association
dc.subjectassociative learning
dc.subjectconfidence
dc.subjectprediction error
dc.subjecttheory protection
dc.subjectuncertainty
dc.titleTheory protection: do humans protect existing associative links?
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeArticle
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35143242
plymouth.issue1
plymouth.volume48
plymouth.publisher-urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xan0000314
plymouth.publication-statusPublished online
plymouth.journalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition
dc.identifier.doi10.1037/xan0000314
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Admin Group - REF
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Admin Group - REF/REF Admin Group - FoH
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Psychology
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA04 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA04 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience/UoA04 REF peer reviewers
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (CBCB)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (CBCB)/Cognition
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-11-08
dc.rights.embargodate2022-2-16
dc.identifier.eissn2329-8464
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1037/xan0000314
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-02
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV