ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025
Learning about causal relations that change over time: primacy and recency over long timeframes in causal judgments and memory.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.