The Role of Selection History in the Learned Predictiveness Effect

Previous research has shown that cues that are good predictors of relevant outcomes receive more attention than nonpredictive cues. This attentional bias is thought to stem from the different predictive value of cues. However, because successful performance requires more attention to predictive cues, the bias may be a lingering effect of previous attention to cues (i.e., a selection history effect) instead. Two experiments assessed the contribution of predictive value and selection history to the bias produced by learned predictiveness. In a first task, participants responded to pairs of cues, only one of which predicted the correct response. A second task was superficially very similar, but the correct response was determined randomly on each trial and participants responded based on some physical characteristic of a target stimulus in each compound. Hence, in this latter task, participants had to pay more attention to the target stimuli, but these stimuli were not consistently associated with a specific response. Results revealed no differences in the attentional bias toward the relevant stimuli in the two tasks, suggesting that the bias induced by learned predictiveness is a consequence of deploying more attention to predictive stimuli during training. Thus, predictiveness may not bias attention by itself, adding nothing over and above the effect expected by selection history.