How people (fail to) control the influence of affective stimuli on attitudes.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1037/pspa0000426
Mandy Hütter, Steven Sweldens
{"title":"How people (fail to) control the influence of affective stimuli on attitudes.","authors":"Mandy Hütter, Steven Sweldens","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People's attitudes toward almost any stimulus (e.g., brands, people, food items) can change in line with the valence of co-occurring stimuli (e.g., images, messages, other people), a phenomenon known as the evaluative conditioning (EC) effect. Recent research has shown that EC effects are not always controlled, which is problematic in many circumstances (e.g., advertising, misinformation). We examined conditions under which uncontrolled EC effects are more likely to reflect retrieval failures or uncontrolled encoding processes. To provide an experimental test of this question, we propose that people can either integrate or add validity information to the stimulus valence. Specifically, we propose that controlled processes can integrate validity information into the stored valence representations mostly when validity information is provided at the time of exposure to the evaluative information. Control attempts taking place later are more likely to add than to integrate the validity information to the stored representation. Moreover, if validity information is merely added to the stimulus valence as compared to integrated, forgetting this information potentially inflates indices of uncontrolled processes. Our findings demonstrate important boundary conditions for the interpretation of measures of uncontrolled encoding processes. Nevertheless, they provide further evidence that uncontrolled encoding processes can contribute to EC effects. We discuss implications for theories of attitude change and for protection from misinformation. (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":"2024-11-18","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/pspa0000426","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

People's attitudes toward almost any stimulus (e.g., brands, people, food items) can change in line with the valence of co-occurring stimuli (e.g., images, messages, other people), a phenomenon known as the evaluative conditioning (EC) effect. Recent research has shown that EC effects are not always controlled, which is problematic in many circumstances (e.g., advertising, misinformation). We examined conditions under which uncontrolled EC effects are more likely to reflect retrieval failures or uncontrolled encoding processes. To provide an experimental test of this question, we propose that people can either integrate or add validity information to the stimulus valence. Specifically, we propose that controlled processes can integrate validity information into the stored valence representations mostly when validity information is provided at the time of exposure to the evaluative information. Control attempts taking place later are more likely to add than to integrate the validity information to the stored representation. Moreover, if validity information is merely added to the stimulus valence as compared to integrated, forgetting this information potentially inflates indices of uncontrolled processes. Our findings demonstrate important boundary conditions for the interpretation of measures of uncontrolled encoding processes. Nevertheless, they provide further evidence that uncontrolled encoding processes can contribute to EC effects. We discuss implications for theories of attitude change and for protection from misinformation. (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
人们如何(未能)控制情感刺激对态度的影响。
人们对几乎任何刺激物(如品牌、人物、食品)的态度都会随着同时出现的刺激物(如图像、信息、其他人)的价值而改变,这种现象被称为评价性条件反射(EC)效应。最近的研究表明,EC 效应并不总是可控的,这在很多情况下(如广告、错误信息)都是有问题的。我们研究了在哪些条件下,不受控制的 EC 效应更有可能反映出检索失败或编码过程失控。为了对这一问题进行实验测试,我们提出,人们可以将有效性信息整合或添加到刺激价值中。具体来说,我们认为,当人们在接触评价性信息时获得有效性信息,受控过程就能将有效性信息整合到存储的价值表征中。而稍后进行的控制尝试更有可能将有效性信息添加到存储的表征中,而不是将其整合到存储的表征中。此外,如果有效性信息只是被添加到刺激的价位中,而不是被整合到刺激的价位中,那么遗忘这些信息就有可能增加不受控制过程的指数。我们的研究结果为解释不可控编码过程的测量结果提供了重要的边界条件。尽管如此,这些研究结果还是进一步证明了不受控制的编码过程可能会导致EC效应。我们讨论了态度改变理论和防止误导的意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
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