Ivan I. Ivanchei, Senne Braem, Luc Vermeylen, Wim Notebaert
{"title":"冲突规避的评价条件及其对适应性控制的影响","authors":"Ivan I. Ivanchei, Senne Braem, Luc Vermeylen, Wim Notebaert","doi":"10.1007/s11031-024-10091-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Cognitive conflict is typically experienced as negative, which has been argued to drive adaptive behavior following a conflict. We tried to change the negative value of conflict using evaluative conditioning, and measured changes in conflict adaptation in a subsequent Stroop task (<i>N</i> = 416 Prolific participants, English native speakers from different countries). We did not find evidence for decreased conflict adaptation following positive evaluative conditioning of conflict. However, we also did not find evidence for the change of conflict evaluation measured with the affect misattribution procedure in the follow-up experiment (<i>N</i> = 70). Interestingly, the exploratory follow-up analysis showed that people with low goal motivation (as measured through BAS Drive) did show the expected effect. A memory test for the evaluative conditioning pairings and the follow-up experiment suggest that, although the affective value of conflict was difficult to change, people with low goal motivation experienced less difficulty remembering the association between conflict stimuli and positive pictures. Our findings show additional evidence that conflicts are inherently negative, however, there is no clear support for, or against, the affective signaling hypothesis, that is the idea that conflict negativity drives control adaptations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48282,"journal":{"name":"Motivation and Emotion","volume":"200 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluative conditioning of conflict aversiveness and its effects on adaptive control\",\"authors\":\"Ivan I. Ivanchei, Senne Braem, Luc Vermeylen, Wim Notebaert\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11031-024-10091-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Cognitive conflict is typically experienced as negative, which has been argued to drive adaptive behavior following a conflict. We tried to change the negative value of conflict using evaluative conditioning, and measured changes in conflict adaptation in a subsequent Stroop task (<i>N</i> = 416 Prolific participants, English native speakers from different countries). We did not find evidence for decreased conflict adaptation following positive evaluative conditioning of conflict. However, we also did not find evidence for the change of conflict evaluation measured with the affect misattribution procedure in the follow-up experiment (<i>N</i> = 70). Interestingly, the exploratory follow-up analysis showed that people with low goal motivation (as measured through BAS Drive) did show the expected effect. A memory test for the evaluative conditioning pairings and the follow-up experiment suggest that, although the affective value of conflict was difficult to change, people with low goal motivation experienced less difficulty remembering the association between conflict stimuli and positive pictures. Our findings show additional evidence that conflicts are inherently negative, however, there is no clear support for, or against, the affective signaling hypothesis, that is the idea that conflict negativity drives control adaptations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Motivation and Emotion\",\"volume\":\"200 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Motivation and Emotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-024-10091-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Motivation and Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-024-10091-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluative conditioning of conflict aversiveness and its effects on adaptive control
Cognitive conflict is typically experienced as negative, which has been argued to drive adaptive behavior following a conflict. We tried to change the negative value of conflict using evaluative conditioning, and measured changes in conflict adaptation in a subsequent Stroop task (N = 416 Prolific participants, English native speakers from different countries). We did not find evidence for decreased conflict adaptation following positive evaluative conditioning of conflict. However, we also did not find evidence for the change of conflict evaluation measured with the affect misattribution procedure in the follow-up experiment (N = 70). Interestingly, the exploratory follow-up analysis showed that people with low goal motivation (as measured through BAS Drive) did show the expected effect. A memory test for the evaluative conditioning pairings and the follow-up experiment suggest that, although the affective value of conflict was difficult to change, people with low goal motivation experienced less difficulty remembering the association between conflict stimuli and positive pictures. Our findings show additional evidence that conflicts are inherently negative, however, there is no clear support for, or against, the affective signaling hypothesis, that is the idea that conflict negativity drives control adaptations.
期刊介绍:
Motivation and Emotion publishes articles on human motivational and emotional phenomena that make theoretical advances by linking empirical findings to underlying processes. Submissions should focus on key problems in motivation and emotion, and, if using non-human participants, should contribute to theories concerning human behavior. Articles should be explanatory rather than merely descriptive, providing the data necessary to understand the origins of motivation and emotion, to explicate why, how, and under what conditions motivational and emotional states change, and to document that these processes are important to human functioning.A range of methodological approaches are welcome, with methodological rigor as the key criterion. Manuscripts that rely exclusively on self-report data are appropriate, but published articles tend to be those that rely on objective measures (e.g., behavioral observations, psychophysiological responses, reaction times, brain activity, and performance or achievement indicators) either singly or combination with self-report data.The journal generally does not publish scale development and validation articles. However, it is open to articles that focus on the post-validation contribution that a new measure can make. Scale development and validation work therefore may be submitted if it is used as a necessary prerequisite to follow-up studies that demonstrate the importance of the new scale in making a theoretical advance.