从越轨喜欢到反向效应:再考察无意识评价条件作用对态度形成的影响

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Collabra-Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1525/collabra.87462
Moritz Ingendahl, Johanna Woitzel, Nadja Propheter, Michaela Wänke, Hans Alves
{"title":"从越轨喜欢到反向效应:再考察无意识评价条件作用对态度形成的影响","authors":"Moritz Ingendahl, Johanna Woitzel, Nadja Propheter, Michaela Wänke, Hans Alves","doi":"10.1525/collabra.87462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evaluative Conditioning (EC) is the change in liking of an object due to its mere pairing with a positive/negative stimulus. A central question in EC research is whether EC effects also emerge without awareness of the stimulus pairings. This is often tested by asking participants after the conditioning whether an object had been paired with positive or negative stimuli. If participants’ answers in these memory measures mismatch with the US valence (e.g., “positive” response when an object was paired with a negative stimulus), the pairings are classified as unaware. The last decade of EC research has found mostly no evidence for unaware EC, and sometimes even reversed unaware EC effects when using such memory measures. The present work demonstrates that such valence memory measures underestimate unaware EC effects due to differences between the normed and the subjective US valence. In two simulation studies, a re-analysis of previous studies, and four preregistered experiments (N = 502), we assess when this bias is more or less severe, depending on common procedural variations in EC experiments. We also propose an improved memory measure of aware/unaware EC. Yet, even when the bias was reduced in the corrected measure, no evidence for unaware EC could be found. Overall, our research shows that unaware EC may be difficult to detect with valence memory measures. Also, they support current memory-based and propositional EC accounts.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Deviant Likes to Reversed Effects: Re-Investigating the Contribution of Unaware Evaluative Conditioning to Attitude Formation\",\"authors\":\"Moritz Ingendahl, Johanna Woitzel, Nadja Propheter, Michaela Wänke, Hans Alves\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/collabra.87462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Evaluative Conditioning (EC) is the change in liking of an object due to its mere pairing with a positive/negative stimulus. A central question in EC research is whether EC effects also emerge without awareness of the stimulus pairings. This is often tested by asking participants after the conditioning whether an object had been paired with positive or negative stimuli. If participants’ answers in these memory measures mismatch with the US valence (e.g., “positive” response when an object was paired with a negative stimulus), the pairings are classified as unaware. The last decade of EC research has found mostly no evidence for unaware EC, and sometimes even reversed unaware EC effects when using such memory measures. The present work demonstrates that such valence memory measures underestimate unaware EC effects due to differences between the normed and the subjective US valence. In two simulation studies, a re-analysis of previous studies, and four preregistered experiments (N = 502), we assess when this bias is more or less severe, depending on common procedural variations in EC experiments. We also propose an improved memory measure of aware/unaware EC. Yet, even when the bias was reduced in the corrected measure, no evidence for unaware EC could be found. Overall, our research shows that unaware EC may be difficult to detect with valence memory measures. Also, they support current memory-based and propositional EC accounts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87462\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87462","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

评价性条件反射(EC)是由于一个物体仅仅与一个积极/消极刺激配对而引起的喜欢程度的变化。电脑研究的一个核心问题是,电脑效应是否也会在没有意识到刺激配对的情况下出现。这通常是通过在条件反射后询问参与者一个物体是否与积极或消极刺激配对来测试的。如果参与者在这些记忆测试中的答案与美国效价不匹配(例如,当一个物体与一个消极刺激配对时,“积极”的反应),配对被归类为未意识到。过去十年的EC研究基本上没有发现无意识EC的证据,有时甚至在使用这种记忆测量方法时逆转了无意识EC的影响。目前的工作表明,这种效价记忆测量低估了无意识的EC效应,由于规范和主观美国效价之间的差异。在两项模拟研究、一项对先前研究的重新分析和四项预注册实验(N = 502)中,我们根据EC实验中常见的程序变化评估了这种偏差的严重程度。我们还提出了一种改进的有意识/无意识EC的记忆测量方法。然而,即使在修正后的测量中减少了偏差,也没有发现无意识EC的证据。总的来说,我们的研究表明,无意识的EC可能很难用效价记忆测量来检测。此外,它们支持当前基于记忆和命题的EC帐户。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
From Deviant Likes to Reversed Effects: Re-Investigating the Contribution of Unaware Evaluative Conditioning to Attitude Formation
Evaluative Conditioning (EC) is the change in liking of an object due to its mere pairing with a positive/negative stimulus. A central question in EC research is whether EC effects also emerge without awareness of the stimulus pairings. This is often tested by asking participants after the conditioning whether an object had been paired with positive or negative stimuli. If participants’ answers in these memory measures mismatch with the US valence (e.g., “positive” response when an object was paired with a negative stimulus), the pairings are classified as unaware. The last decade of EC research has found mostly no evidence for unaware EC, and sometimes even reversed unaware EC effects when using such memory measures. The present work demonstrates that such valence memory measures underestimate unaware EC effects due to differences between the normed and the subjective US valence. In two simulation studies, a re-analysis of previous studies, and four preregistered experiments (N = 502), we assess when this bias is more or less severe, depending on common procedural variations in EC experiments. We also propose an improved memory measure of aware/unaware EC. Yet, even when the bias was reduced in the corrected measure, no evidence for unaware EC could be found. Overall, our research shows that unaware EC may be difficult to detect with valence memory measures. Also, they support current memory-based and propositional EC accounts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
期刊最新文献
Characterizing Human Habits in the Lab. Breaking Ban: Belgium’s Ineffective Gambling Law Regulation of Video Game Loot Boxes Revisiting the Differential Centrality of Experiential and Material Purchases to the Self: Replication and Extension of Carter and Gilovich (2012) Cyberloafing: Investigating the Importance and Implications of New and Known Predictors Psychometric Properties of the Chilean Version of the Oviedo Grit Scale
×
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