The Judgment of Contingency and the Nature of the Response Alternatives

摘要: Previous investigations have shown that subjects make systematic errors in judging the contingency between responses and outcomes: judged increases with frequency of positive outcomes absence actual contingency. In present experiment judgments were obtained when both response alternatives active choices (as previous experiments), one alternative was to no response. latter case, more accurate less influenced by outcomes. This result expected on hypothesis are active, tend assume any would occur. faulty assumption, which is hypothesized be source distortion judgment contingency, ruled out making an explicit within task. what appear a very simple task, Jenkins & Ward (1965) found surprising lack correspondenc e intuitive They made use two response—two outcome On each series trials subject chose then observed occurrence outcomes, 'score' light or 'no-score'