How people learn about causal influence when there are many possible causes: A model based on informative transitions.

Four experiments tested how people learn cause-effect relations when there are many possible causes of an effect. When there are many cues, even if all the cues together strongly predict the effect, the bivariate relation between each individual cue and the effect can be weak, which can make it difficult to detect the influence of each cue. We hypothesized that when detecting the influence of a cue, in addition to learning from the states of the cues and effect (e.g., a cue is present and the effect is present), which is hypothesized by multiple existing theories of learning, participants would also learn from transitions - how the cues and effect change over time (e.g., a cue turns on and the effect turns on). We found that participants were better able to identify positive and negative cues in an environment in which only one cue changed from one trial to the next, compared to multiple cues changing (Experiments 1A, 1B). Within a single learning sequence, participants were also more likely to update their beliefs about causal strength when one cue changed at a time ('one-change transitions') than when multiple cues changed simultaneously (Experiment 2). Furthermore, learning was impaired when the trials were grouped by the state of the effect (Experiment 3) or when the trials were grouped by the state of a cue (Experiment 4), both of which reduce the number of one-change transitions. We developed a modification of the Rescorla-Wagner algorithm to model this 'Informative Transitions' learning processes.

Investigations of a reproductive processing advantage in memory.

Previous work has shown that processing words for their survival value improves memory. If this survival processing effect reflects an evolutionary adaptation in memory, processing words for their reproductive value should also improve memory. Across three experiments, participants rated words for their relevance in reproductive scenarios. In Experiment 1, participants rated adjectives (traits) for their relevance in finding a mate, evaluating a coworker, or in terms of their pleasantness. Mate processing produced better memory than pleasantness ratings, but not coworker processing. In Experiment 2, participants rated traits for their relevance in detecting sexual or emotional infidelity. Neither processing condition produced better memory compared to pleasantness ratings, but there were several unpredicted interactions involving participant sex and jealousy responses. In Experiment 3, participants rated gifts for their appropriateness in a romantic date or a housewarming party, or in terms of their pleasantness. Date processing and housewarming processing both improved recall compared to pleasantness rating, but date processing and housewarming processing did not produce differences compared to each other. Overall, the current study demonstrates very little evidence of a reproductive processing effect, and nothing approaching the magnitude of previous work on the survival processing effect.