Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Influence of a Valence Focus on Evaluative Conditioning Anne Gast & Klaus Rothermund University of Jena."— Presentation transcript:

1 The Influence of a Valence Focus on Evaluative Conditioning Anne Gast & Klaus Rothermund University 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 presentationpost-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 Field & Moore (2005) Distraction prevents EC-effects not due to cognitive capacity Importance of a valence focus?

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

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

9 US-revaluation PRO: Baeyens et al., 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

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

12 experiment 1: results EC-effectF(1,60) = 9,75, p <.01, η =.14 EC * judgementF(1,60) = 4,89, p <.05, η =.075 EC * specificityF(1,60) < 1, ns. EC * judgement * specificityF(1,60) < 1, ns valence judgmentage judgment specific pairingnon specific pairing difference Cspos – Csneg * * ns

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

16 experiment 2: results Main effect valenceF(1,62) = , p <.001, η =.249 Valence * judgementF(1,62) < 1 **

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 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

21 Experiment 3 – results dfFppartial η 2 EC-effect(1,57)4.724< EC * Focus(2,114)< 1 + 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 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

24 Thank you for your attention!

25 Experiment 1 : results Mediation 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

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, η partial 2 =.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 1.Categorize in respect to valence 2.Categorize in respect to style 3.Control: no task

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

29 Experiment 2: results Evaluative conditioning effects (difference CSpos – CSneg) under different task foci Main effect valence: F(1,97) = , 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

30 experiment 2: results

31 Sensory Pre-conditioning Hammerl & Grabitz, 1996; Walther, 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 1Walther (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 design 1.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 procedure Picture-CS is paired with positive or negative adjectives material CS: 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)

34 experiment 1: results EC-effectF(1,60) = 9,75, p <.01, η =.14 EC * judgementF(1,60) = 4,89, p <.05, η =.075 EC * specificityF(1,60) < 1, ns. EC * judgement * specificityF(1,60) < 1, ns. valence-judgement, specific pairingt(15) = 2.419, p <.05, d =.61 valence-judgement, non specific pairingt(15) = 2.481, p <.05, d =.62 age-judgement, specific pairingt(15) = 1.509, p =.152, ns valence judgmentage judgment specific pairingnon specific pairing difference Cspos – Csneg

35 experiment 2b increased power - specific pairing, age judgement EC-effectt(31) = 1.059, p =.298 power-analysis(α =.05; d =.62; N = 32): β =.924

36 experiment 2: results Main effect valenceF(1,62) = , p <.001, η =.249 Valence * judgementF(1,62) < 1 Valence in valence judgementF(1,31) = 8.732, p <.01, η =.22 Valence in age judgementF(1,31) =, , p <,01, η =.276 Valence * ReinstatementF(1,62) = 3.775, p =.057, η =.057

37 Results experiment 3 dfFppartial η 2 Valence6.86< Awareness Valence*Awareness6.72<.05.13

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

39 Results experiment 3 dfFppartial η 2 Valenz(1,124)26.273< Valenz * task(1,124)< Valenz * Spec(1,124) Valenz * task * Spec(1,124)< * ** +

40 Experiment 1,2 & 3: results dfFp partial η 2 EC-effect(1,264)40.220< EC * judgement(1,264)8.012< EC * Spec(1,264)< 1 EC * judgement * reactivation (1,264)4.65< EC * judgement * Spec * reactivation (1,264)< 1


Download ppt "The Influence of a Valence Focus on Evaluative Conditioning Anne Gast & Klaus Rothermund University of Jena."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google