Retrospective$revaluation—learning$about$implied$but$unpresented$cues—poses$one$of$
the$greatest$challenges$to$classical$learning$theories.$$Whereas$theorists$have$revised$their$
models$to$accommodate$revaluation,$the$empirical$reliability$of$the$phenomenon$remains$
contentious.$$I$present$two$sets$of$experiments$that$examine$revaluative$learning$under$
different$but$analogous$experimental$protocols.$$Results$provided$mixed$empirical$
evidence$that$is$difficult$to$interpret$in$isolation.$$To$address$the$issue,$I$apply$two$
computational$models$to$the$experiments.$$An$instanceObased$model$of$associative$learning$
(Jamieson$et$al.,$2012)$predicts$retrospective$revaluation$and$anticipates$participant$
behaviour$in$one$set$of$experiments.$$An$updated$classical$learning$model$(Ghirlanda,$
2005)$fails$to$predict$retrospective$revaluation,$but$anticipates$participant$behaviour$in$the$
other$set$of$experiments.$$I$argue$that$retrospective$revaluation$emerges$as$a$corollary$of$
basic$memorial$processes$and$discuss$the$empirical$and$theoretical$implications