Top

Gepubliceerd in:

17-10-2018 | Original Article

No evaluative conditioning effects with briefly presented stimuli

Auteurs: Tobias Heycke, Christoph Stahl

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2020

Abstract

Evaluative conditioning (EC) changes the preference towards a formerly neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus; CS), by pairing it with a valent stimulus (unconditioned stimulus; US), in the direction of the valence of the US. When the CS is presented suboptimally (i.e., too briefly to be consciously perceived), contingency awareness between CS and US can be ruled out. Hence, EC effects with suboptimally presented CSs would support theories claiming that contingency awareness is not necessary for EC effects to occur. Recent studies reported the absence of EC with briefly presented CSs when both CS and US were presented in the visual modality, even though the CSs were identified at above-chance levels. Challenging this finding, Heycke et al. (R Soc Open Sci 4(9):160935, 2017) found some evidence for an EC effect with briefly presented visual stimuli in a cross-modal paradigm with auditory USs, but that study did not assess CS visibility. The present study realized a close replication of this study, while deviated from it using different stimuli, introducing a brief practice phase, and adding a CS visibility check. Overall EC for briefly presented stimuli was absent, and results from the visibility check show that an EC effect with briefly presented CSs was only found, when the CSs were identified at above-chance levels.

vorige artikel Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: evidence from rTMS

volgende artikel Not scene learning, but attentional processing is superior in team sport athletes and action video game players

Note that, in these studies, CS presentation was not fully subliminal: Although CS identification performance was very low, it was significantly above chance levels, thereby ruling out the alternative explanation that the CSs have not been processed at all.

The data of the pretest and the main study were collected under a Born Open Data protocol (Rouder, 2016) in which they were automatically logged, uploaded, and made freely available after every day of data collection (https://github.com/methexp/rawdata/tree/master/croco4, https://github.com/methexp/rawdata/tree/master/croco4b, https://github.com/methexp/rawdata/tree/master/croco5).

We, furthermore, used the R-packages BayesFactor (version 0.9.12.4.2; Morey & Rouder, 2015), papaja (version 0.1.0.9842; Aust & Barth, 2017), tidyr (version 0.8.1; Wickham & Henry, 2017), and yarrr (version 0.1.5; Phillips, 2017).

As we had two stimuli per experimental cell (e.g., two different CSs for briefly presented stimuli paired with a positive US), we had at least one rating per US valence in the 30 ms condition for 143 participants when applying the exclusion criterion.

We additionally tested whether these 18 participants, who showed a better visibility for the 30 ms stimuli, also showed a larger EC effect for stimuli presented for 1000 ms than all other participants. There were no indications that this was the case, \({\mathrm{BF}}_{01}(152) = 1.65\), \(d = 0.30\), 95% HDI [− 0.16, 0.77].

Aust, F., & Barth, M. (2017). Papaja: Create APA manuscripts with R Markdown. https://github.com/crsh/papaja.

Corneille, O., & Stahl, C. (2018). Associative attitude learning: a closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. Personality and Social Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318763261.CrossRefPubMed

De Houwer, J. (2007). A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 230–241.CrossRef

Dedonder, J., Corneille, O., Bertinchamps, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2014). Overcoming correlational pitfalls experimental evidence suggests that evaluative conditioning occurs for explicit but not implicit encoding of CS-US pairings. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(2), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613490969.CrossRef

Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). I like myself but i don’t know why: Enhancing implicit self-esteem by subliminal evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.345.CrossRefPubMed

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692.CrossRefPubMed

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2014). The associative-propositional evaluation model: Operating principles and operating conditions of evaluation. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 188–203). New York: Guilford Press.

Greenwald, A. G., & De Houwer, J. (2017). Unconscious conditioning: Demonstration of existence and difference from conscious conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(12), 1705–1721. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000371.CrossRef

Heycke, T., Aust, F., & Stahl, C. (2017). Subliminal influence on preferences? A test of evaluative conditioning for brief visual conditioned stimuli using auditory unconditioned stimuli. Royal Society Open Science, 4(9), 160935. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Heycke, T., Gehrmann, S., Haaf, J. M., & Stahl, C. (2018). Of two minds or one? A registered replication of Rydell et al. (2006). Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1429389.CrossRef

Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F., & Crombez, G. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018916.CrossRefPubMed

Högden, F., Hütter, M., & Unkelbach, C. (2018). Does evaluative conditioning depend on awareness? Evidence from a continuous flash suppression paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000533 (in press).PubMed

Hütter, M., & Sweldens, S. (2013). Implicit misattribution of evaluative responses: Contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning requires simultaneous stimulus presentations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 638. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029989.CrossRef

Jones, C. R., Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2009). Implicit misattribution as a mechanism underlying evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 933–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014747.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lovibond, P. F., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.28.1.3.CrossRefPubMed

Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(02), 183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000855.CrossRefPubMed

Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor.

Niedenthal, P. M. (1990). Implicit perception of affective information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(6), 505–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90053-O.CrossRef

Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2001). Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 12(5), 413–417.CrossRef

Phillips, N. (2017). Yarrr: A companion to the e-book yarrr!: The pirate’s guide to r. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=yarrr.

Pratte, M. S., & Rouder, J. N. (2009). A task-difficulty artifact in subliminal priming. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.6.1276.CrossRef

R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

Rouder, J. N. (2014). Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0595-4.CrossRef

Rouder, J. N. (2016). The what, why, and how of born-open data. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0630-z.CrossRefPubMed

Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., & Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001.CrossRef

Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian \(t\) tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225.CrossRef

Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Mackie, D. M., & Strain, L. M. (2006). Of two minds forming and changing valence-inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes. Psychological Science, 17(11), 954–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01811.x.CrossRefPubMed

Schönbrodt, F. D., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Zehetleitner, M., & Perugini, M. (2015). Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: Efficiently testing mean differences. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2604513.

Stahl, C., Haaf, J., & Corneille, O. (2016). Subliminal evaluative conditioning? Above-chance CS identification may be necessary and insufficient for attitude learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000191.CrossRef

Stahl, C., Unkelbach, C., & Corneille, O. (2009). On the respective contributions of awareness of unconditioned stimulus valence and unconditioned stimulus identity in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016196.CrossRefPubMed

Sweldens, S., Corneille, O., & Yzerbyt, V. (2014). The role of awareness in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314527832.CrossRefPubMed

Sweldens, S., Van Osselaer, S. M., & Janiszewski, C. (2010). Evaluative conditioning procedures and the resilience of conditioned brand attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1086/653656.CrossRef

Topolinski, S., & Deutsch, R. (2012). Phasic affective modulation of creativity. Experimental Psychology, 59(5), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000159.CrossRefPubMed

Topolinski, S., & Deutsch, R. (2013). Phasic affective modulation of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 414–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028879.CrossRefPubMed

Wickham, H., & Henry, L. (2017). Tidyr: Easily tidy data with ’spread()’ and ’gather()’ functions. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr.

Titel: No evaluative conditioning effects with briefly presented stimuli
Auteurs: Tobias Heycke
Christoph Stahl
Publicatiedatum: 17-10-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1109-1

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

Developmental differences between 1st and 3rd year of Early Childhood Education (preschool) in mental rotation and its training

Social inclusion, but not exclusion, delays attentional disengagement from direct gaze

Individual movement features during prism adaptation correlate with after-effects and interlimb transfer

Short-term upper-limb immobilization alters peripersonal space representation

Explicit knowledge of sensory non-redundancy can reduce the strength of multisensory integration

The diffusion model visualizer: an interactive tool to understand the diffusion model parameters