Evidence for an evaluative effect of stimulus co-occurrence may be inflated by evaluative differences between assimilative and contrastive relations.

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition & Emotion Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1080/02699931.2025.2460099
Karoline Corinna Bading, Marius Barth, Klaus Rothermund
{"title":"Evidence for an evaluative effect of stimulus co-occurrence may be inflated by evaluative differences between assimilative and contrastive relations.","authors":"Karoline Corinna Bading, Marius Barth, Klaus Rothermund","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2025.2460099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent research on relational evaluative conditioning (relational EC) suggests that stimulus co-occurrence can have a direct effect on evaluations over and above the particular relation between the co-occurring stimuli. This research is based on a process dissociation approach where co-occurrence effects are demonstrated via attenuated evaluative learning for co-occurring stimuli that are connected by contrastive in comparison to assimilative relations. Instead of attributing such attenuations to an orthogonal influence of stimulus co-occurrence, we investigated whether (a) contrastive relations tend to produce weaker evaluations than their assimilative counterparts and (b) such evaluative differences can inflate evidence for co-occurrence effects on continuous as well as on categorical evaluation measures. A pilot study (<i>N</i> = 85) confirmed notion (a), while a first experiment (<i>N</i> = 42) produced preliminary evidence for notion (b) in the context of multinomial processing tree (MPT) modelling. In a second, high-powered experiment (<i>N</i> = 229), sub-sample MPT analyses (including only CSs with correct memory for the CS-US proposition) demonstrated that evidence for co-occurrence effects can be inflated by evaluative differences between assimilative vs. contrastive relations. The theoretical and methodological implications of these findings are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":" ","pages":"1995-2017"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2025.2460099","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent research on relational evaluative conditioning (relational EC) suggests that stimulus co-occurrence can have a direct effect on evaluations over and above the particular relation between the co-occurring stimuli. This research is based on a process dissociation approach where co-occurrence effects are demonstrated via attenuated evaluative learning for co-occurring stimuli that are connected by contrastive in comparison to assimilative relations. Instead of attributing such attenuations to an orthogonal influence of stimulus co-occurrence, we investigated whether (a) contrastive relations tend to produce weaker evaluations than their assimilative counterparts and (b) such evaluative differences can inflate evidence for co-occurrence effects on continuous as well as on categorical evaluation measures. A pilot study (N = 85) confirmed notion (a), while a first experiment (N = 42) produced preliminary evidence for notion (b) in the context of multinomial processing tree (MPT) modelling. In a second, high-powered experiment (N = 229), sub-sample MPT analyses (including only CSs with correct memory for the CS-US proposition) demonstrated that evidence for co-occurrence effects can be inflated by evaluative differences between assimilative vs. contrastive relations. The theoretical and methodological implications of these findings are discussed.

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
刺激共现的评价效应的证据可能被同化关系和对比关系之间的评价差异夸大。
最近关于关系评价条件作用(relational evaluation conditioning, relational EC)的研究表明,刺激共现可以在共现刺激之间的特定关系之外对评价产生直接影响。本研究基于过程分离方法,其中共发生效应通过对共发生刺激的弱化评价学习来证明,这些刺激通过对比与同化关系相连接。我们没有将这种衰减归因于刺激共现的正交影响,而是研究了(a)对比关系是否倾向于产生比同化关系更弱的评价,以及(b)这种评价差异是否会夸大在连续和分类评价措施上共现效应的证据。一项初步研究(N = 85)证实了概念(A),而第一次实验(N = 42)在多项处理树(MPT)建模的背景下为概念(b)提供了初步证据。在第二个高功率实验(N = 229)中,子样本MPT分析(仅包括对CS-US命题有正确记忆的CSs)表明,同化与对比关系之间的评价差异可能会夸大共现效应的证据。讨论了这些发现的理论和方法意义。
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
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
期刊最新文献
The visual nature of social interaction and its impact on overall mood judgments. Overt attention to social signals during social exclusion: a pre-registered study. The disappointing (not hateful) divide: uncovering the negative emotions at the heart of affective polarization. Applying the peak-end rule to improve exposure outcomes in fear and anxiety. Re-visiting an affective modulation of stimulus-response binding and retrieval.
×
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:604180095
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