posted on 2016-11-18, 14:30authored byH.A. Cavus, Rachel M. Msetfi
When there is no contingency between actions and outcomes, but outcomes occur frequently,
people tend to judge that they have control over those outcomes, a phenomenon known as the
outcome density (OD) effect. Recent studies show that the OD effect depends on the
duration of the temporal interval between action-outcome conjunctions, with longer intervals
inducing stronger effects. However, under some circumstances OD effect is reduced, for
example when participants are mildly depressed. We reasoned that Working Memory (WM)
plays an important role in learning of context; with reduced WM capacity to process
contextual information during intertrial intervals (ITIs) during contingency learning might
lead to reduced OD effects (limited capacity hypothesis). To test this, we used a novel dualtask
procedure that increases the WM load during the ITIs of an operant (e.g., actionoutcome)
contingency learning task to impact contextual learning. We tested our hypotheses
in groups of students with zero (Experiments 1, N= 34), and positive contingencies
(Experiment 2, N= 34). The findings indicated that WM load during the ITIs reduced the OD
effects compared to no load conditions (Experiment 1 and 2). In Experiment 2, we observed
reduced OD effects on action judgements under high load in zero and positive contingencies.
However, the participants’ judgements were still sensitive to the difference between zero and
positive contingencies. We discuss the implications of our findings for the effects of
depression and context in contingency learning.
History
Publication
Acta Psychologica;171, pp. 47-56
Publisher
Elsevier
Note
peer-reviewed
Rights
This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Acta Psychologica. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Acta Psychologica, 171, pp. 47-56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.09.005