Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006

Implicit Cognition:A Functional-Cognitive Perspective

Jan De HouwerGhent University, Belgium

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

Cognitive: 2nd level of explanation

Environment: Description

Functional: 1st level of explanation

Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

e.g., time 1: bell - no salivation; time 2: food; ITI=10;time 3: bell = 2 drops salivation; …

Increase in salivation is due to pairing of bell and food= classical conditioning as an effect

The fact that statistical contingency increases salivationis due to formation of associations in memory

I. Functional-Cognitive Framework for Implicit Cognition

Applied to Implicit Cognition:

FUNCTIONAL: Automatic impact of events on behavior

COGNITIVE: Mental processes that mediate automatic impact

Event Behavior

Event BehaviorMental Processes

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

Dominance of associative theories of implicit cognition:

* implicit evaluation as the result of a known mechansim

* sources: repeated pairings

* no impact of type of relation

=> Habit-like, non-relational responding

Event Behavior Association

beer good

Automatic construction or activation of propositions (Hughes et al., 2011, Psych Rec; DH, in press, SPPC)

* implicit evaluation as the result of known mechanisms- automatic comparison with goals (appraisal; Moors et al., 2005)- automatic application of tasks (Van Opstal et al., 2011)- automatic retrieval of old propositions from memory

* sources: experience, goals, instructions, inferences*Impact of type of relation LINK to REC model: IC effects are instances of automatic rel responding

“beer is good”

- Limit to “implicit evaluation” / “implicit attitudes” research

= automatic impact of stimuli on evaluative behavior

(as indexed by implicit measures such as Implicit Association Test, Evaluative Priming, Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure; see Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014)

- Limit to impact of relational information on implicit evaluation

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

II. Empirical evidence

1. Peters & Gawronski (2011, PSPB)- Impression formation: Info about new colleagues that are true or false

* Person 1: good – true* Person 2: good – false* Person 3: bad – true* Person 4: bad – false

- Exp 1 & Exp 2: Immediate validity info

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

- Exp 3: Validity info only after all other info

=> Impact of relational info (validity) but reversal only if validity info is available during the pairings

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

2. Zanon et al. (in press, QJEP)a) Experiment 1- Learn meaning of Turkish words (Bayram – Happy)- Procedure: * Before OR after pairings, info that Turkish and English

words are antonyms * DV = IAT

- ResultsBEFORE: -.08*AFTER: .05 (ns)

Less impact of relational info if after pairings* Due to associative processes (i.e., pairings as such)?* Due to default propositions (i.e., pairing as relational cue; “same”)

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

b) Experiment 2- Learn meaning of Turkish words (Bayram – Happy)- Procedure:

* Before AND after pairings, info that Turkish and English words are antonyms or synomyms

* also condition without relational instructions* DV = IAT

- Results => implicit evaluation depends more on first info (synonym or antonym) => 2 x synomym instruction has same effect as no instruction

- Conclusion: mere act of pairing is a cue for equivalence (similarity)

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

3. Remue et al. (in press): Impact of relational information during implicit evaluation

- positive implicit evaluation of self in depressed patients (e.g., self-esteem IAT: I, other, positive, negative)

- could be due to fact that measures capture “I WANT TO BE GOOD” proposition rather than “I AM GOOD”

- IRAP (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2010, The Psychological Record)also see: http://irapresearch.org

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

III. Mutual supportive nature of functional and cognitive approach

1. What can the functional approach offer?:- mental free way of talking about implicit cognition

=> maximizes freedom of cognitive models- REC provides ideas about time and complexity- RFT: implicit cognition as one instance of AARR

=> prediction on the basis of analogy

2. What can cognitive approach offer?- propositional models currently add little beyond relational but

more complex models can be developed, in part on evidence generated by research in functional tradition

- itterative processing: Cunningham (2007, Soc Cognition)

Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014