However, there were certain theories that did predict that no difference would occur in the aformentioned conditions or target cues. This discussion will outline these thoeries. It will likewise discuss why Cue A in the experiment caused impairments in causal judgement about Cue B relative to the other conditions.
One of the thoerists that predicted a noticeable difference between target cues E and G was Kamin. His study proposed that in a blocking experiment, if the US is changed during Stage 2 (e.g., by making it significantly stronger or weaker), then significant new learning can occur about the added element (CS2) of the Compound CS, and strong conditioned responses to CS2 will be expressed in Stage 3. The "surprising" change in the US supports formation of new associations during Stage 2, since CS2 is the "best predictor" of the surprising change in the US. However, Kamin also suggested that this will not be the case when for target cue E. He proposed a difference between the two situations which was not demonstrated in the experiment conducted.
With regards to the rational behind the ability of cue A to impair causal judgement relative to target cue B, this can best be explained by refering to the associative learning theory promulgated by Rescorla and Wagner.