Why is there no negativity bias in evaluative conditioning? A cognitive-ecological answer.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1037/pspa0000431
Lea M Sperlich, Christian Unkelbach
{"title":"Why is there no negativity bias in evaluative conditioning? A cognitive-ecological answer.","authors":"Lea M Sperlich, Christian Unkelbach","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluative conditioning (EC) is the change of a conditioned stimulus's evaluation due to its pairing with an unconditioned stimulus (US). While learning typically shows negativity biases, we found no such biases in a reanalysis of meta-analytic EC data. We provide and test a cognitive-ecological answer for this lack of negativity bias. We assume that negativity effects follow from ecological differences in evaluative information's distributions (i.e., differential frequency). Accordingly, no negativity bias emerges because positive and negative information is equally frequent in most EC experiments. However, if negative (or positive) information is rare, we predict a negativity (positivity) bias. We tested this prediction in five preregistered experiments (three laboratory-based, <i>N</i> = 394, two online, <i>N</i> = 391). As predicted, if negative USs were rare, a negativity bias followed. However, if positive USs were rare, we also observed positivity biases in participants' conditioned stimulus evaluations. These data support a cognitive-ecological explanation of valence asymmetries and partially explain why EC experiments show no negativity bias: Typical EC designs do not reflect the ecological information structure that contributes to a negativity bias in the first place. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000431","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is the change of a conditioned stimulus's evaluation due to its pairing with an unconditioned stimulus (US). While learning typically shows negativity biases, we found no such biases in a reanalysis of meta-analytic EC data. We provide and test a cognitive-ecological answer for this lack of negativity bias. We assume that negativity effects follow from ecological differences in evaluative information's distributions (i.e., differential frequency). Accordingly, no negativity bias emerges because positive and negative information is equally frequent in most EC experiments. However, if negative (or positive) information is rare, we predict a negativity (positivity) bias. We tested this prediction in five preregistered experiments (three laboratory-based, N = 394, two online, N = 391). As predicted, if negative USs were rare, a negativity bias followed. However, if positive USs were rare, we also observed positivity biases in participants' conditioned stimulus evaluations. These data support a cognitive-ecological explanation of valence asymmetries and partially explain why EC experiments show no negativity bias: Typical EC designs do not reflect the ecological information structure that contributes to a negativity bias in the first place. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么评价性条件反射中没有消极偏差?认知生态学的答案。
评价性条件反射(EC)是指条件刺激与非条件刺激(US)配对后,条件刺激的评价发生变化。虽然学习通常会出现否定性偏差,但我们在对荟萃分析的评价性条件反射数据进行重新分析时却没有发现这种偏差。我们为这种缺乏否定性偏差的现象提供并测试了认知生态学的答案。我们假定否定性效应源于评价信息分布的生态差异(即频率差异)。因此,不会出现消极偏差,因为在大多数选委会实验中,积极和消极信息的出现频率是相同的。但是,如果消极(或积极)信息很少,我们就会预测出消极(积极)偏差。我们在五个预先注册的实验(三个实验室实验,人数=394;两个在线实验,人数=391)中测试了这一预测。正如预测的那样,如果负向 USs 很少,则会出现负向偏差。然而,如果积极的 USs 很少见,我们在参与者的条件刺激评价中也观察到了积极性偏差。这些数据支持对情绪不对称的认知生态学解释,并部分解释了为什么EC实验没有显示消极偏差:典型的EC设计并不反映生态信息结构,而生态信息结构首先会导致否定性偏差。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
期刊最新文献
Compassionate love and beneficence in the family. How people (fail to) control the influence of affective stimuli on attitudes. A contest study to reduce attractiveness-based discrimination in social judgment. Group information enhances recognition of both learned and unlearned face appearances. Moderators of test-retest reliability in implicit and explicit attitudes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1