Abstract

Defining cues for instrumental causality are the temporal, spatial and contingency relationships between actions and their effects. In this study, we carried out a series of causal learning experiments that systematically manipulated time and context in positive and negative contingency conditions. In addition, we tested participants categorized as non-dysphoric and mildly dysphoric because depressed mood has been shown to affect the processing of all these causal cues. Findings showed that causal judgements made by non-dysphoric participants were contextualized at baseline and were affected by the temporal spacing of actions and effects only with generative, but not preventative, contingency relationships. Participants categorized as dysphoric made less contextualized causal ratings at baseline but were more sensitive than others to temporal manipulations across the contingencies. These effects were consistent with depression affecting causal learning through the effects of slowed time experience on accrued exposure to the context in which causal events took place. Taken together, these findings are consistent with associative approaches to causal judgement.

Highlights

  • The ability to learn about causal relationships between events is adaptive and enables people to learn to control their environment or, at least, to interact with it effectively [1]

  • High outcome density conditions always received action ratings and context ratings that were more towards the positive end of the judgment scale than low outcome density conditions. This meant that high outcome density action ratings were weak and located nearer to zero on the judgment scale than low outcome density action ratings

  • We set out to explore the role of time and context in causal learning, with levels of depression included as a moderator variable

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The ability to learn about causal relationships between events is adaptive and enables people to learn to control their environment or, at least, to interact with it effectively [1]. It isn’t surprising that psychological disturbance can affect people’s judgments about causal relationships [2,3]. Cause and effect occur successively, often in close spatial proximity [6], and the effect should be contiguous and contingent upon the occurrence of the cause [7,8] It is the combination of these cues that is critical in terms of defining causality, as any of them taken in isolation could be misleading [9,10]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call