Date post: | 31-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | zephr-hoffman |
View: | 20 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Influence of a Valence Focus on Evaluative
Conditioning
Anne Gast & Klaus RothermundUniversity of Jena
overview
• Evaluative Conditioning (EC)
• Is a focus on valence necessary for EC?– Experiment 1
• Mechanism of the valence focus– Experiment 2
• How specific is a valence focus?– Experiment 3
• General conclusions and discussion
Evaluative Conditioning (EC)(Martin & Levey, 1978)
• Pairing evaluatively neutral stimulus (CS) with positively or negatively evaluated stimulus (US)
CS changes valence towards US
(repeated) pairwise presentation post-conditioning rating
Research question 1:
Do Evaluative Conditioning effects only occur, if we focus on evaluation during conditioning?
– Earlier findings– Experiment 1
Disruptive influence of secondary task
Field & Moore (2005)
• Distraction prevents EC-effects• not due to cognitive capacity • Importance of a valence focus?
Research question 1
• Valence focus during conditioning has an influence on EC-effect
Is evaluative response during presentation of the pair decisive?
Is response toward stimulus associated with CS?
Positive valence
CS US
Positive valence
Positive valence
evaluation
CS-US-association
CS-evaluation-association
Possibly learned associations:
US-revaluationPRO: Baeyens et al., 1992
1. CS is paired with valent US CS takes over US‘ valence
2. US is revaluated with opposite information CS does not change its valence
CONTRA: No US revaluation effect: Baeyens, et al., 1998
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
congruent revaluation incongruent revaluation
positive
negative
experiment 1
• Influence of task during conditioning (valence judgment vs. age judgment)
• Manipulation of specificity of CS-US-pairings
CS-evaluation-associationvalence judgment EC-effectage judgment no EC-effect
CS-US-associationspecific pairings strong EC-effectnon specific pairings weaker EC-effect
experiment 1: procedure1. Conditioning
2. Post-Rating
8 pictures as CS
32 adjectives as US
Choice of stimuli (pilot)
Positive or negative impression?
Valence task Age taskOld or young impression?
positive negative
Paired with…
healthy
8x
strong healthy flexible etc.
…8 different US from one category
How positive/negative?
…1 US
experiment 1: results
EC-effect F(1,60) = 9,75, p < .01, η = .14
EC * judgement F(1,60) = 4,89, p < .05, η = .075
EC * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.
EC * judgement * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
valence judgment age judgment
specific pairing non specific pairing
diff
eren
ce C
spos
– C
sneg * *
ns
ns
conclusion experiment 1
• Focus on valence is important
• Specificity of pairing is not important
Is the response given during conditioning associated with the CS?
research question 2:What is the mechanism?
• EC is due to association between CS and evaluation. Effect only if the response is evaluation
• EC is due to association between CS and US, but due to the non-evaluative task US-valence is temporarily inhibited Reactivation of US-valence returns effect
experiment 2: procedure
1. Conditiong
healthy
Valence vs. age judgement
2. US-Reactivation
Healthy
Positive or negative?
Evaluative reaction on single US
How positive/negative?
8x3. Post-rating
experiment 2: results
Main effect valence F(1,62) = 20.524, p < .001, η = .249
Valence * judgement F(1,62) < 1
** **
Conclusion from Exp 1 & 2
• non-evaluative task hinders EC- effect(Exp. 1)
• This is due to a surpression of US‘ valence if evaluation is not task relevant
• reactivation of US returns effect(Exp. 2)
CS-US-association + US-valence EC-effect!
Research question 3: How stimulus specific is the valence
focus effect?
• Is it the specific stimulus that is judged on valence that is „switched on“?
• Are all stimuli present in the context are „switched on“?
experiment 3 How specific is the valence focus?
Judgmental Task is manipulated within participants. Different CS-US-pairs are combined with the two different tasks:
Pair 1: US1 – CS1: valence task
Pair 2: US2 – CS2: age task
Pair 3: US1 – CS3: age task (but US is in valence task in pair 1)
Hypotheses:
Pair 1: EC-effect (valence of US is activated in these trials)
Pair 3: EC-effect (valence of US is activated, in other trials)
Pair 2: EC-effect (valence of US is not directly activated, however evaluation takes place in the context)
experiment 3: procedure
1. Conditiong 2. Post-rating
healthy
flexible
healthy
Pair 1:
evaluate!
Pair 2:
judge age!
Pair 3:
judge age!
US evaluated here
US evaluated in other pair
Evaluation in context
Effect here context based
Experiment 3 – results
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
evaluationtask
evaluated inother pair
age task
CS
-ev
alu
ati
on
aft
er
co
nd
itio
nin
g
positive
negative
df F p partial η2
EC-effect (1,57) 4.724 < .05 .077
EC * Focus (2,114) < 1
+
ns
ns
conclusion experiment 3
• Evaluative focus is not stimulus specific. In a context were some stimuli are evaluated the valence of all other similar stimuli is active aswell.
General conclusions• Evaluative Effects are only found if an evaluative
focus is active during the learning trials
• This is due to temporal supression of stimulus valence if only non-evaluative dimensions are considered.
• If the valence of only some stimuli is task relevant, this is enough for all stimuli‘s valence to be activated.
• Evaluative learning takes places in evaluative contexts and less when attention is on other dimensions
Experiment 1 : resultsMediation analysis of valence judgment (itemwise)
US valence
judgment
CS valence
β = .794*** β = .719***
β = .211* (without judgment)
β = -.359** (with judgment)
Judgment: Times judged positive – times judged negative during conditioning
experiment 1 (unspecific pairings): results
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
valence task age task
CS pos
CS neg
Main effect US-type: F(30, 1) = 2.41, p = .131
US-type*task: F(30,1) = 3.875, p = .058, ηpartial2 = .114
US-type under valence task: t(15) = 2.481, p < .05, d = .62
US-type under age task: t(15) = -.295, p = .772
Experiment 1: „valence focus“
Manipulated: task focus indirectly via a secondary task during conditioning
1. Categorize in respect to valence
2. Categorize in respect to style
3. Control: no task
Experiment 2: procedure3. conditioning1. Baseline-
evaluation4. Post-conditioning-evaluation
N-D N-L
choice
CS + US
4 pairs 4 pairs
USnegCS CSUSpos
Pairwise presentation (5x)
Do you like this garment? Casual or evening?
valence task style task
Experiment 2: results Evaluative conditioning effects (difference CSpos – CSneg)
under different task foci
Main effect valence: F(1,97) = 23.369, p< .001, ηpartial2 = .194
US-valence x task: F(2,97) = 2.61, p = .079, ηpartial2 = .194
Contrast style task – valence task and control: t(99) = 1.892, p = .061
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
valence task style task no task
high cog. Load
low cog. Load
Sensory Pre-conditioning
Hammerl & Grabitz, 1996; Walther, 2002
1. CS1 (neutral) is paired with CS2 (neutral)
2. Only CS1 is paired with US (valent)
CS1 changes into the direction of the US
also CS2 changes into direction of US
Walther (2002), experiment 1 Walther (2002), experiment 2
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
direct pairing sensorypreconditioning
positive
control
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
direct pairing sensorypreconditioning
negative
control
results of studies on US-revaluation and sensory pre-conditioning
• After pairing CS-valence depends on US-valence.
• After pairing CS-valence depends not on US-valence.
majority of evidence speaks for CS-US-associations
experiment 1
design1. valence of US (within)2. Age of US (within)3. judgment task during conditioning (age/valence; between)4. Specificity of CS-US-pairing between)
Conditioning procedurePicture-CS is paired with positive or negative adjectives
materialCS: 8 pre-chosen portrait fotos (pre-study N = 38): neutral on the dimensions age and valence
US: prechosen adjectives (pre-studies N = 17/22/15):8 positive/young, 8 positive/old, 8 negative/young, 8 negative/old
Conditioning trials: 500 ms CS only, 2200 ms CS & US, 1000 ms CS, US & response
Task: judgment of picture and word as a whole (age or valence)
experiment 1: results
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
specific non specific specific non specific
valence judgement age judgement
CS
-rat
ing
aft
er c
on
dit
ion
ing
paired positive
paired negative
EC-effect F(1,60) = 9,75, p < .01, η = .14
EC * judgement F(1,60) = 4,89, p < .05, η = .075
EC * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.
EC * judgement * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.
valence-judgement, specific pairing t(15) = 2.419, p < .05, d = .61
valence-judgement, non specific pairing t(15) = 2.481, p < .05, d = .62
age-judgement, specific pairing t(15) = 1.509, p = .152, ns.
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
valence judgment age judgment
specific pairing non specific pairing
difference Cspos – Csneg
experiment 2bincreased power - specific pairing, age judgement
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
positive pairing negative pairing
CS
-rat
ing
s af
ter
con
dit
ion
ing
EC-effect t(31) = 1.059, p = .298
power-analysis (α = .05; d = .62; N = 32): β =.924
experiment 2: results
Main effect valence F(1,62) = 20.524, p < .001, η = .249
Valence * judgement F(1,62) < 1
Valence in valence judgement F(1,31) = 8.732, p < .01, η = .22
Valence in age judgement F(1,31) =, 11.805, p < ,01, η = .276
Valence * Reinstatement F(1,62) = 3.775, p = .057, η = .057
Results experiment 3
df F p partial η2
Valence 6.86 <.05 .132
Awareness 1.823 .184 .039
Valence*Awareness 6.72 <.05 .13
experiment 3: procedure
1. Conditiong 2. Post-conditioning-rating
Positive or negative impression?
Valence task Age taskOld or young impression?
positive negative
Paired with…
e.g. Healthy
8x
multi-cultura
l
healthy flexibleetc.
…8 different US from one category
How positive/negative?
…1 US
2. US-Reinstatement
Healthy
Positive or
negative?
Evaluative reaction on single US
Results experiment 3
df F p partial η2
Valenz (1,124) 26.273 < .001 .175
Valenz * task (1,124) < 1 .007
Valenz * Spec (1,124) 1.220 .271 .010
Valenz * task * Spec (1,124) < 1 .001
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
valence task age task valence task age task
specific pairing unspecific pairing
Eva
lua
tio
n a
fte
r co
nd
itio
nin
g
positive
negative
***** +