Abstract
In his presentation of the propositional account of associative learning, De Houwer (2009) argues that association formation models (AFMs) assume excitatory link representations and automatic learning processes. However, the application of AFMs to human causal and contingency learning has assumed propositional forms of representation, although excitatory link representations are also required to explain certain nonrational consequences of associative learning. Moreover, at least two of the AFMs that have been applied to human associative learning invoke processing with nonautomatic characteristics. In conclusion, the distinction between the propositional account and AFMs of associative learning lies not in the form of representations but in the specific details of the learning processes generating the associative representations.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aitken, M. R. F., & Dickinson, A. (2005). Simulations of a modified SOP model applied to retrospective revaluation of human causal learning. Learning & Behavior, 33, 147–159.
Aitken, M. R. F., Larkin, M. J. W., & Dickinson, A. (2001). Re-examination of the role of within-compound associations in the retrospective revaluation of causal judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 27–51.
Blaisdell, A. P., Sawa, K., Leising, K. J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2006). Causal reasoning in rats. Science, 311, 1020–1022.
Clayton, N., & Dickinson, A. (2006). Rational rats. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 472–474.
De Houwer, J. (2009). The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models. Learning & Behavior, 37, 1–20.
Dickinson, A. (1980). Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, A., Shanks, D. R., & Evenden, J. L. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29–50.
Heyes, C., & Dickinson, A. (1990). The intentionality of animal action. Mind & Language, 5, 87–104.
Hogarth, L., Dickinson, A., Austin, A., Brown, C., & Duka, T. (2008). Attention and expectation in human predictive learning: The role of uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1658–1668.
Jenkins, H. M., & Moore, B. R. (1973). The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 163–181.
Kaye, H., & Pearce, J. M. (1984). The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 90–109.
Le Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and hybrid model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 193–243.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.
Miller, R. R., & Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schultz, W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neural coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 473–500.
Shanks, D. R. (1987). Acquisition functions in contingency judgment. Learning & Motivation, 18, 147–166.
Waelti, P., Dickinson, A., & Schultz, W. (2001). Dopamine responses comply with basic assumptions of formal learning theory. Nature, 412, 43–48.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I thank Cecilia Heyes for her comments on a draft of this reply.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dickinson, A. What are association formation models?. Learning & Behavior 37, 21–24 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.1.21
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.1.21