Table 4.
De Houwer and Beckers (2002) results and best-fitting predictions.
| Obs-1 | RWM-1 | WCM-1 | CEM-1 | Obs-2 | RWM-2 | WCM-2 | CEM-2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Ph 1 | Ph 2 | A | B | C | A | B | C | A | B | C | A | B | C | Ph 3 | A | B | C | A | B | C | A | B | C | A | B | C |
| Inf | AB+ | BC+ | 44 | 50 | 44 | 30 | 50 | 19 | 17 | 61 | 20 | 10 | 62 | 21 | A+ | 83 | 6 | 82 | 82 | 50 | 19 | 81 | 41 | 58 | 82 | 35 | 48 |
| Def | A- | 0 | 63 | 23 | 0 | 50 | 19 | 0 | 65 | 13 | 1 | 63 | 19 | ||||||||||||||
Note: Inf = inflate; Def = deflate. Letters A, B, and C represent weapon cues in a human contingency learning procedure. + (-) represents the occurrence (omission) of an explosion outcome in a simulated shooter task. Obs = observed ratings of the effectiveness of a weapon cue. RWM = predictions by the Rescorla-Wagner model, WCM = predictions by the Within-Compound model, and CEM = predictions by the Conjoint Error model.. In columns summarizing the first test (e.g., Obs-1), values reflect the observed mean and predicted values for the two groups.