Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2026

Asymmetric Walkway: A Novel Behavioral Assay for Studying Asymmetric Locomotion
Published on: January 15, 2016
Asymmetries in cue competition in forward and backward blocking designs: Further evidence for causal model theory
Samantha L Booth1, Marc J Buehner
1School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract:
A hallmark feature of elemental associative learning theories is that multiple cues compete for associative strength when presented with an outcome. Cue competition effects have been observed in humans, both in forward and in backward blocking procedures (e.g., Shanks, 1985) and are often interpreted as evidence for an associative account of human causal learning (e.g., Shanks & Dickinson, 1987). Waldmann and Holyoak (1992), however, demonstrated that cue competition only occurs in predictive, and not diagnostic, learning paradigms. While unexplainable from an associative perspective, this asymmetry readily follows from structural considerations of causal model theory. In this paper, we show that causal models determine the extent of cue competition not only in forward but also in backward blocking designs. Implications for associative and inferential accounts of causal learning are discussed.
More Related Videos
13:00Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
Published on: January 23, 2017
13:20Online Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Dorsomedial and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Cognition Decision Making, and Cognitive Dissonance
Published on: December 5, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Mechanism of Ciliary Motion
The cilia are made up of microtubules in a 9+2 arrangement, with nine microtubule doublet ring bundles, surrounding a pair of central singlet microtubule bundles. The doublet microtubule bundles are...
Theory of Attribution II: Kelley's Covariation Theory
Facial Feedback Hypothesis
Cause and Effect
Causes of Similarity-Dissimilarity Effect
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II