Testing the deductive inferential account of blocking in causal learning.

Abstract

The sensitivity of the blocking effect to outcome additivity pretraining has been used to argue that the phenomenon is the result of deductive inference, and to draw general conclusions about the nature of human causal learning. In two experiments, we manipulated participants' assumptions about the additivity of the outcome using pretraining before a typical blocking procedure. Ratings measuring causal judgments, confidence, and expected severity of the outcome were used concurrently to investigate how pretraining affected assumptions of outcome additivity and blocking. In Experiment 1, additive pretraining led to lower causal ratings and higher confidence ratings of the blocked cue, relative to control cues, consistent with the notion that additive pretraining encourages deductive reasoning. However, Experiments 1 and 2 showed that removing additivity assumptions through nonadditive pretraining had no impact on a statistically reliable blocking effect observed in a blocking procedure with no pretraining. We found no evidence that the blocking effect in the absence of pretraining was related to the participants' assumptions about the additivity of the outcome. Although additive pretraining may enhance blocking by encouraging deductive reasoning about the blocked cue, the evidence suggests that blocking in causal learning is not reliant on this reasoning and that humans do not readily engage in deduction merely because they possess the assumptions that permit its use.