Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982529›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025

Learning about causal relations that change over time: primacy and recency over long timeframes in causal judgments and memory.

Benjamin M Rottman, Yiwen Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Benjamin M RottmanUniversity of Pittsburgh, 546 Murdoch Building, 3420 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA. rottman@pitt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4718-3970
Yiwen ZhangUniversity of Pittsburgh, 546 Murdoch Building, 3420 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3224-8495

Funding

National Science Foundation 1651330
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Being able to notice that a cause-effect relation is getting stronger or weaker is important for adapting to one's environment and deciding how to use the cause in the future. We conducted an experiment in which participants learned about a cause-effect relation that either got stronger or weaker over time. The experiment was conducted with a typical procedure in which the learning cases were presented rapidly, and with a mobile phone procedure, in which participants experienced the cause-effect relation over 24 days. First, we found that people could detect the change in contingency. They were better at doing so in the artificial short timeframe task, but still could do so in the more realistic long timeframe task. Second, when making summary judgments about the cause-effect relation, participants exhibited a recency effect for most measures in the long timeframe, but did not exhibit a primacy or recency effect in the short timeframe. Third, though participants' episodic memories for individual cause-effect events in the learning sequence were quite poor, they did exhibit primacy and recency effects in the short timeframe; these were attenuated in the long timeframe. These findings raise fundamental questions about causal learning; they suggest that people automatically recognize changes and store representations of the contingency during different phases of learning, but this ability is not predicted by most existing theories of causal learning.

Indexed as

JudgmentLearningMemory, EpisodicMental RecallAdultFemaleHumansMaleTime FactorsYoung AdultCausal learningOrder effectsPrimacyRecencySerial position effect

Identifiers

PMID39982529
PMCPMC11845336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.