1 / 40

overview

The Influence of a Valence Focus on Evaluative Conditioning Anne Gast & Klaus Rothermund University 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?

inari
Télécharger la présentation

overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Influence of a Valence Focus on Evaluative ConditioningAnne Gast & Klaus RothermundUniversity of Jena

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Research question 1: Do Evaluative Conditioning effects only occur, if we focus on evaluation during conditioning? • Earlier findings • Experiment 1

  5. Disruptive influence of secondary task • Distraction prevents EC-effects • not due to cognitive capacity • Importance of a valence focus? Field & Moore (2005)

  6. 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?

  7. Positive valence Positive valence US CS Possibly learned associations: CS-US-association evaluation Positive valence CS-evaluation-association

  8. Former results on CS-US-associations US-revaluation Sensory preconditioning

  9. US-revaluation PRO: Baeyens et al., 1992 CS ispairedwith valent US  CS takesover US‘ valence 2. US isrevaluatedwithoppositeinformation  CS does not changeitsvalence CONTRA: No US revaluation effect: Baeyens, et al., 1998

  10. experiment 1 • Influence of task during conditioning (valence judgment vs. age judgment) • Manipulation of specificity of CS-US-pairings CS-evaluation-association valence judgment  EC-effect age judgment  no EC-effect CS-US-association specific pairings  strong EC-effect non specific pairings  weaker EC-effect

  11. Choice of stimuli (pilot) 8 pictures as CS 32 adjectives as US 8x healthy experiment 1: procedure • Conditioning 2. Post-Rating Paired with… …8 different US from one category strong flexible healthy How positive/negative? etc. …1 US Valence task Age task Old or young impression? Positive or negative impression?

  12. 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 valence judgment age judgment specific pairing non specific pairing experiment 1: results * * ns ns difference Cspos – Csneg

  13. conclusion experiment 1 • Focus on valence is important • Specificity of pairing is not important  Is the response given during conditioning associated with the CS?

  14. 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

  15. experiment 2: procedure 2. US-Reactivation Evaluative reaction on single US • Conditiong 3. Post-rating 8x healthy Healthy Positive or negative? Valence vs. age judgement How positive/negative?

  16. experiment 2: results ** **

  17. 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!

  18. 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“?

  19. 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)

  20. experiment 3: procedure 2. Post-rating • Conditiong US evaluated here Pair 1: evaluate! healthy Evaluation in context Pair 2: judge age! Effect here  context based flexible Pair 3: judge age! US evaluated in other pair healthy

  21. Experiment 3 – results ns + ns

  22. 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.

  23. General conclusions • Evaluative Effectsareonlyfoundif an evaluative focusisactiveduringthelearningtrials • Thisis due totemporal supressionofstimulusvalenceifonly non-evaluative dimensionsareconsidered. • Ifthevalenceofonlysomestimuliistask relevant, thisisenoughfor all stimuli‘svalencetobeactivated. • Evaluative learningtakesplaces in evaluative contextsandlesswhenattentionis on otherdimensions

  24. Thank you for your attention!

  25. Experiment 1 : results Mediation analysis of valence judgment (itemwise) judgment β = .719*** β = .794*** US valence CS valence β = .211* (without judgment) β = -.359** (with judgment) Judgment: Times judged positive – times judged negative during conditioning

  26. experiment 1 (unspecific pairings): results 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

  27. Experiment 1: „valence focus“ Manipulated: task focus indirectly via a secondary task during conditioning Categorize in respect to valence Categorize in respect to style Control: no task

  28. Experiment 2: procedure 3. conditioning 1. Baseline- evaluation 4. Post-conditioning-evaluation CS USpos CS USneg N-L N-D 4 pairs 4 pairs choice CS + US Pairwise presentation (5x) valence task style task Do you like this garment? Casual or evening?

  29. Experiment 2: results Evaluative conditioningeffects(differenceCSpos – CSneg) under different taskfoci Main effectvalence: 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 – valencetaskandcontrol: t(99) = 1.892, p = .061

  30. experiment 2: results

  31. Sensory Pre-conditioning Hammerl & Grabitz, 1996; Walther, 2002 CS1 (neutral) is paired with CS2 (neutral) 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

  32. 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

  33. experiment 1 material CS: 8 pre-chosen portrait fotos (pre-study N = 38): neutral on the dimensions age and valence design • valence of US (within) • Age of US (within) • judgment task during conditioning (age/valence; between) • Specificity of CS-US-pairing between) US: prechosen adjectives (pre-studies N = 17/22/15): 8 positive/young, 8 positive/old, 8 negative/young, 8 negative/old Conditioning procedure Picture-CS is paired with positive or negative adjectives Task: judgment of picture and word as a whole (age or valence) Conditioningtrials: 500 ms CS only, 2200 ms CS & US, 1000 ms CS, US & response

  34. 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 valence judgment age judgment specific pairing non specific pairing experiment 1: results difference Cspos – Csneg

  35. experiment 2bincreased power - specific pairing, age judgement

  36. experiment 2: results

  37. Results experiment 3

  38. 8x e.g. Healthy experiment 3: procedure • Conditiong 2. US-Reinstatement 2. Post-conditioning-rating Paired with… Evaluative reaction on single US …8 different US from one category multi-cultural flexible healthy How positive/negative? etc. Healthy Positive or negative? …1 US Valence task Age task Old or young impression? Positive or negative impression?

  39. Results experiment 3 + ** ** *

  40. Experiment 1,2 & 3: results

More Related