Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Evaluative Conditioning
with a Positive or Negative Unconditioned Stimulus (US) Pavlovian Conditioning: A change in responses to a CS that results from pairing the CS with a US = Negative Evaluation Social Psychology = Positive Evaluation Consumer Science Summary The Functional Approach Level of Analysis: "Evaluative responding" explained in terms of the interactions between people in and with their past and present environment. Two pragmatic criteria - predict and influence behaviour with scope and precision.
Interested in all types of behaviours - both public and private Research Agenda: To study evaluative responding from a functional- and specifically a Relational Frame Theory - perspective (Hayes et al., 2001) Derived Relational Responding Derived Transformation of Function The Derived Transformation of Function has now been demonstrated for a range of psychological phenomenon: Anxiety Fear Automatic & Self-Reported Preferences Avoidance Evaluative responding established via (public and private) verbal behaviour does not readily submit to an explanation in terms of respondent learning as traditionally conceived. Study 1 Stage 1 Establish two Crel (Propositional) Cues
meaning “Same” and “Opposite” Establish Relational Responding Each trial presents a single CS (Pokemon) with either a positive or negative US (IAPS image) and two previously trained contextual cues Stage 2 Training should result in the formation of four different
stimulus relations Stage 3 Test for the formation of automatic
evaluative responding Participants have to choose the correct contextual cue with 100% accuracy across 24 successive trials for progression to the next stage Requirement to Proceed: choose correct contextual cue with 100% accuracy across 20 consecutive trials with no corrective feedback 1. IAT assessing affirmation propositions
2. IAT assessing negation propositions (opposition relations) Stage 4 Test for the formation of self-reported
evaluative responding Non-automatic evaluative responding measured using a variety of direct procedures Results Automatic evaluative responding emerged for both the Affirmation and Negation IATs (all ps < .001) suggesting responding consistent with prior relational training. Self-reported evaluative responding was also consistent with the relational training provided F(1, 78) = 109, p = .001. Participants receive training to establish the relational (propositional) functions of two arbitrary contextual cues. Only participants who self-reported evaluations consistent with training showed an IAT negation effect F(1, 77) = 16, p = .001. Conclusions Study 2 One criticism is that all stimulus relations in Study 1 were established via directly trained contingencies. Same Positive Same Negative Opposite Positive Negative Opposite = Same = Opposite Stage 1 Establish two Crel (Contextual) Cues
meaning “Same” and “Opposite” Participants receive training to establish the relational (propositional) functions of two arbitrary contextual cues. = Same = Opposite Stage 2.1 Establish Two Equivalence Classes and
Evaluative Functions for Pokemon Stage 3 Stage 4 Test for Automatic Evaluative Functions Results Test for Self-Reported Evaluative Functions Goals: To understand, predict and influence behaviour with scope and precision by identifying and manipulating the individual's "environment". Cognitive Accounts of Evaluation The Referential Account (Baeyens et al., 1992) The Holistic Account (Levey & Martin, 1975) The Implicit Misattribution Account (Jones et al., 2009) CS US CS US = Negative Evaluation = Positive Evaluation Fear Conditioning (e.g. Blechert et al., 2008; Hermans et al., 2004) (e.g. Bar-Anan et al., 2009; Olson & Fazio, 2001) EC is a genuine, general and replicable behavioural effect evident across a diverse range of stimuli, sensory modalities and procedures (see Hofmann et al., 2010). Inferences Stories/Persuasion Verbal Instructions (e.g. Gibson, 2008; Pleyers et al., 2009) = Positive Evaluation = Negative Evaluation (Gast & De Houwer, in press ) (De Houwer 2006; Hughes & Barnes-Homes, 2011) (e.g. Gregg et al., 2006) Verbal Behaviour (Dougher et al., 2007) ( Smyth, Barnes-Holmes & Forsyth, 2006) (O'Toole et al., 2007; Smeets & Barnes-Holmes, 2003) (Dymond et al., 2008) Demonstrate evaluative responding through direct relational responding and the transformation of function. Participants: N= 80 47 Female Mean Age: 21 (SD = 4) Procedure Stage 1: Establish Two Crel Cues meaning "Same" and "Opposite" Stage 2: Use Crel Cues to Establish Relations between CS and US stimuli Stage 3: Test for Automatic Evaluative Responding (IAT) Stage 4: Test for Self-Reported Evaluative Responding (Negative) (Positive) Associative processes would predict the negation IAT effect in precisely the opposite direction. Findings are consistent with relational responding and DTF (propositional acc). Although everyone correctly reported the affirmation relations, 35 people did not self-report any evaluation for the negation stimuli F(1, 77) = 30, p <.001 2. Automatic and Self-Reported evaluative responding can be established via
DRR & DTF. EC effects are directly in opposition to associative predictions and cannot be accounted for simply in terms of respondent learning. 1. Despite being directly paired with positive images, the CS stimuli were rated as negative when a relation of opposition was established by Crel cues. 3. When participants failed to recall the trained relations only automatic and
self-reported negation relations were affected. Study 2: Automatic and self-reported evaluative responding via derived relational responding & DTF Negative? Positive? EC effects for Pokemon C1 and C2 cannot be explained simply in terms of respondent learning.... Conclusions Stage 2.2 Test for Derived Transformation of Functions Participants: N = 52 31 Female Mean Age = 22 (SD = 6) Only participants who pass the DTF test demonstrated automatic evaluative responding on the IAT F(1,50) = 8.2, p = .01 Automatic responding was moderated by an IAT order effect for the DTF fail condition but not for people who passed the DTF test F(1,20) = 15.5, p = .001. Self-reported responding also moderated by DTF test performance F(5,22) = 9.9, p = .001 Derived transformation of function is critical to the formation of automatic and self-reported "indirect" evaluative responding. Question: Was the DTF test in Study 2 a measure of/ or context for DTF? Automatic responding same before and after the DTF test for both pass and fail groups suggesting that the test DTF is a measure rather than strictly a context for DTF F(1,26) = 15, p = .001. Likewise, a similar pattern of self-reported responding emerged with only DTF pass participants showing the correct performance F(5,26) = 22.5, p =.001 "Indirect" (automatic and self-reported) evalautive responding emerged only for those participants that demonstrated a derived transformation of function. Awareness of the contingency between the various stimuli was not enough - participants needed to be aware of both the relation between the stimuli and transform the functions through these equivalence classes. Overall Conclusions 1. Although respondent learning processes may account for instances of "direct" evaluative responding, changes in stimulus function that emerge through more complex relations are not. Study 1: Even when stimuli are directly paired with psychological events (e.g. positive/negative pictures) these functions can be transformed via relational processes Study 2: Even when stimuli are not paired with either psychological events or stimuli that were, they can acquire functions through derived transformation of function. Respondent learning in combination with operant (relational) learning may represent a functional account for both "direct" and "indirect" (non)evalautive responding. 1. Evaluative Conditioning effects are smaller in children (see Hofmann et al., 2010 for discussion) 2. EC effects are larger for nonsense verbal conditioned stimuli and for neutral conditioned stimuli How: A Combination of Respodent and Relational learning depending on the context in which EC occurs When: can be based on spaitio-temporal contiguity/ perceptual similiarty (direct stimulus relations) or AARR (derived stimulus relations). Why: A particular stimulus function is transfered or transformed to other related stimuli via AARR. f 2. Evaluative Responding at the functional level of analysis and implications. "Indirect" Evaluative Responding = the transfer or transformation of respondent functions through derived stimulus relations. Take Home Message De Houwer et al., (under submission) Rationale CS US Crel Cue = Spatio-temporal Contiguity Crel Cue = Same or Opposite Most EC Research to Date: Study 1 e Spatio-Temporal Contiguity Question: Can evalautive responding be governed by relations other than spatio-temporal contiguity? D-IAT Score Mediating Mental Process 2. The Propositional Account (De Houwer, 2009b) Although "direct" evaluative responding can be established and extinguished through respondent learning, what about "indirect" evaluative responding where no direct pairing of stimuli takes place? 1. Associative Perspective Functional theories draw on a set of inter-related behavioural principles (e.g. respondent/operant learning) rather than mediating mental constructs Study 2.2