Skip to content
PaperFren

Learning

Does a signal help or hurt learning that my action caused an outcome?

Alcalá JA, Kirkden RD, Bray J, et al. · Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

A brief signal between an action and its outcome hurt learning when the outcome came quickly but helped it when the outcome was delayed.

Study at a glance

Design
Human experiment — Three free-operant computer-game experiments manipulating action-outcome delay, signal timing and signal salience within subjects
N
N=81 · 81 undergraduates in Experiment 1 (30 in lab, 51 online), 81 in Experiment 2, 82 in Experiment 3
Population
Undergraduate students in the UK and Spain
Outcome
Rate of space-bar pressing (instrumental performance) and 0-100 causal judgments

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Key findings

In Experiment 1 the signal reduced pressing with the 2-second delay (overshadowing) but increased pressing and causal ratings with the 6-second delay (potentiation). In Experiment 2 the signal only helped when it came right after the action, not when it came just before the outcome. In Experiment 3 a bright, salient signal reduced pressing more than a dim one, but causal ratings were unaffected.

Methodology

Students played a game where pressing the space bar caused explosions after a 2-second or 6-second delay, sometimes with a brief grey sky flash (the signal) in between. They measured how often people pressed and how strongly they believed their pressing caused the explosions. Experiment 2 moved the signal to the start or end of a 6-second delay, and Experiment 3 made the signal dimmer or brighter under a 2-second delay.

Limitations

The samples were mostly female undergraduates, and part of Experiment 1 was run online on participants' own computers, so control over the setting was limited. Causal judgments often did not follow the pressing data, so the two measures seem to dissociate and the effect on beliefs is weaker than on behaviour. The signal was ambiguous (it could mean a comrade was shooting) and only ratio schedules were used, which the authors say may have favoured facilitation; interval schedules or clearer instructions might give different results.

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.