Abstract
When a cue is established as a reliable predictor of an outcome (A-O1), this cue will typically block learning between an additional cue and the same outcome if both cues are subsequently trained together (AB-O1). Three experiments sought to explore whether this effect extends to outcomes and was investigated using the food allergist paradigm in human participants. In all 3 experiments, an outcome facilitation effect was observed. That is, prior learning about an element of an outcome compound (A-O1) facilitated learning about a novel outcome when (A-O2) these outcomes were presented together (A-O1 O2) relative to a control stimulus that first received C-O3 trials prior to C-O1 O2 trials. In Experiment 2, however, participants were also presented with an additional set of control trials, which were presented during Stage II only and reliably predicted the outcome compounds. At test, participants displayed more learning about these additional control trials relative to the blocked outcomes, thus displaying an outcome blocking effect alongside an outcome facilitation effect. In Experiment 3, a one-trial outcome blocking procedure was used to distinguish theoretical accounts of these findings. This procedure revealed an outcome facilitation effect but not an outcome blocking effect. These results can be understood in terms of an account derived from Wagner's (1981) model. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Highlights
When a cue is established as a reliable predictor of an outcome (A-O1), this cue will typically block learning between an additional cue and the same outcome if both cues are subsequently trained together (AB-O1)
The results revealed that subjects in the control group, who had no exposure to A-O1, demonstrated greater learning about the association between A – O2 than those in the experimental group, demonstrating an ‘outcome blocking’ effect
Three experiments explored how training with an outcome (e.g., A – O1) would influence learning about a novel outcome (e.g., O2), when these two outcomes were subsequently presented in compound (e.g., A – O1 O2)
Summary
Thirty-two participants (24 females; 8 males) were recruited from the University of Nottingham’s School of Psychology. In Stage 1, participants were only presented with two of these reactions (e.g. vomiting and diarrhoea). Stage 1 reactions to form a compound outcome stimulus Each of these reactions was presented in capitalised white Arial text (font size: 32) at the bottom of the screen. Each of the reactions were positioned, alongside the food, on the right of the screen (see Figure 1 for example). Participants made their ratings for each reaction by moving a cursor on a Likert scale which ranged from 0 – 100 [‘0’ =.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
