Agency influences vicarious approach/avoidance effects.

Social learning plays a prominent role in shaping individual preferences. The vicarious approach-avoidance effect consists of developing a preference for attitudinal objects that have been approached over objects that have been avoided by another person (model). In two experiments (N = 448 participants), we explored how the vicarious approach-avoidance effect is affected by agency (model's voluntary choice) and identification with the model. The results consistently revealed vicarious approach-avoidance effects in preference, as indicated by the semantic differential and the Implicit Association Test. Agency increased the size of the preference assessed through the semantic differential but did not significantly impact preference in the Implicit Association Test. Identification with the model had no significant impact on the vicarious approach-avoidance effect. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

Children's implicit attitude acquisition: Evaluative statements succeed, repeated pairings fail.

From the earliest ages tested, children and adults show similar overall magnitudes of implicit attitudes toward various social groups. However, such consistency in attitude magnitude may obscure meaningful age-related change in the ways that children (vs. adults) acquire implicit attitudes. This experiment investigated children's implicit attitude acquisition by comparing the separate and joint effects of two learning interventions, previously shown to form implicit attitudes in adults. Children (N = 280, ages 7-11 years) were taught about novel social groups through either evaluative statements (ES; auditorily presented verbal statements such as 'Longfaces are bad, Squarefaces are good'), repeated evaluative pairings (REP; visual pairings of Longface/Squareface group members with valenced images such as a puppy or snake), or a combination of ES+REP. Results showed that children acquired implicit attitudes following ES and ES+REP, with REP providing no additional learning beyond ES alone. Moreover, children did not acquire implicit attitudes in four variations of REP, each designed to facilitate learning by systematically increasing verbal scaffolding to specify (a) the learning goal, (b) the valence of the unconditioned stimuli, and (c) the group categories of the conditioned stimuli. These findings underscore the early-emerging role of verbal statements in children's implicit attitude acquisition, as well as a possible age-related limit in children's acquisition of novel implicit attitudes from repeated pairings.

Why a standard IAT effect cannot provide evidence for association formation: the role of similarity construction.

Moran and Bar-Anan (Moran, T., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2013). The effect of object-valence relations on automatic evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 27(4), 743-752) demonstrated that evaluations on a direct measure reflected information on both US valence and CS-US relations, whereas evaluations on an indirect measure (IAT) reflected only information on US valence. This dissociation between measures supposedly tapping into propositional and associative processes apparently supports dual process models of EC. In the present study, we present an alternative explanation of this pattern, based on an interpretation of IAT effects in terms of flexible similarity construction processes. According to this account, processing draws on those features that discriminate between target categories, and help to align targets with attributes in the compatible block. Across two experiments, we consistently found that IAT effects did not reflect rigid associations, but instead depended on whichever information could be used for similarity constructions between targets and attributes in different variants of the IAT. The findings are discussed with regard to theoretical models of EC as well as in reference to prominent accounts of IAT performance.

Attitudinal Effects of Stimulus Co-occurrence and Stimulus Relations: Paradoxical Effects of Cognitive Load.

Research suggests that evaluations of an object can be jointly influenced by (a) the mere co-occurrence of the object with a pleasant or unpleasant stimulus (e.g., mere co-occurrence of object A and negative event B) and (b) the object's specific relation to the co-occurring stimulus (e.g., object A starts vs. stops negative event B). Three experiments investigated the impact of cognitive load during learning on the effects of stimulus co-occurrence and stimulus relations. Counter to the shared prediction of competing theories suggesting that effects of stimulus relations should be reduced by cognitive load during learning, effects of stimulus relations were greater (rather than smaller) under high-load compared with low-load conditions. Effects of stimulus co-occurrence were not significantly affected by cognitive load. The results are discussed in terms of theories suggesting that cognitive load can influence behavioral outcomes via strategic shifts in resource allocation in response to task-specific affordances.

The Role of Relational Qualifiers in Attribute Conditioning: Does Disliking an Athletic Person Make You Unathletic?

In attribute conditioning (AC), neutral stimuli (CSs) acquire specific attributes through mere pairings with other stimuli possessing that attribute (USs). For example, if a neutral person "Neal" is paired with athletic "Wade," participants judge Neal as more athletic compared with when Wade would be unathletic. Building on Evaluative Conditioning research, we introduced relational qualifiers between CS and US to probe the contribution of propositional processes to the AC effect. Concretely, CSs either liked or disliked USs. Four experiments (total n = 1,002) showed that these relations moderate AC effects for athleticism ("athletic" vs. "unathletic"; Experiments 1-3) and relationship status ("single" vs. "in a relationship"; Experiment 4); for example, when Neal disliked athletic Wade, he was judged as unathletic. We discuss how these findings constrain process theories of AC.

Attitudinal Effects of Stimulus Co-Occurrence and Stimulus Relations: Range and Limits of Intentional Control.

Research suggests that evaluations of an object can be simultaneously influenced by (a) the mere co-occurrence of the object with a pleasant or unpleasant stimulus (e.g., mere co-occurrence of object A and negative event B) and (b) the object's particular relation to the co-occurring stimulus (e.g., object A starts vs. stops negative event B). Using a multinomial modeling approach to disentangle the two kinds of influences on choice decisions, three experiments investigated whether learners can intentionally control the relative impact of stimulus co-occurrence and stimulus relations. An integrative analysis of the data from the three experiments (N = 1,154) indicate that incentivized instructions to counteract effects of stimulus co-occurrence by focusing on stimulus relations increased the impact of stimulus relations without affecting the impact of stimulus co-occurrence. Implications for evaluative learning, intentional control, and public policy are discussed.

How disappointing: Startle modulation reveals conditional stimuli presented after pleasant unconditional stimuli acquire negative valence.

Past research on backward conditioning in evaluative and fear conditioning yielded inconsistent results in that self-report measures suggest that the conditional stimulus (CS) acquired the valence of the unconditional stimulus (US) in fear conditioning (assimilation effects), but the opposite valence in evaluative conditioning (contrast effects). Conversely, implicit measures of CS valence suggest assimilation effects in evaluative backward conditioning, whereas startle modulation indicates contrast effects in backward fear conditioning. The current study investigated whether US intensity could account for the dissociation on implicit measures between fear and evaluative conditioning. Self-report measures of evaluative learning indicated assimilation effects for forward conditioning, whereas backward contrast effects were observed with intense USs only. Blink startle modulation indicated assimilation effects in forward conditioning and contrast effects in backward conditioning, regardless of US intensity. Experiment 2 included a neutral US in order to assess whether the offset of the positive US elicits an opponent emotional response that mirrors relief (disappointment), which is thought to mediate the reduction in startle seen during backward CSs in fear conditioning. This opponent emotional response was evident as startle magnitude during backward CSs increased linearly with increasing US pleasantness. Omission of the forward CSs led to an assimilation effect in self-report measures. The current results extend our understanding of emotional learning to stimuli encountered after salient emotional events. Startle reflects the emotion prevailing after US offset, relief or disappointment, whereas self-report measures seem more attuned to factors such as US predictability and intensity.

Startle during backward evaluative conditioning is not modulated by instructions.

Instructions highlighting that backward conditional stimuli (CSs) stop unconditional stimuli (USs) result in their acquiring valence opposite to that of the US on explicit measures of valence. We assessed whether such instructions would influence startle blink modulation in the same way. Two groups were presented with concurrent forward and backward evaluative conditioning (CS-US-CS) using cartoon aliens as CSs, and pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant sounds as USs. Startle magnitude was measured during conditioning and valence ratings were assessed after conditioning. Participants in the "start-stop" instructions group (n = 41) were instructed to learn whether CSs started or stopped US presentations, while participants in the "observe" instructions group (n = 41) were told to pay attention to the stimuli as they would be asked questions about them after the experiment. In the start-stop instructions group backward CSs paired with positive USs were rated as less pleasant than backward CSs paired with neutral and negative USs (contrast effect), whereas ratings of backward CSs did not differ in the observe instructions group. Startle magnitude was larger during backward CSs paired with positive USs in comparison to CSs paired with neutral or negative USs in both instruction groups. Startle blink modulation was unaffected by instructions, suggesting that startle indexes the emotional state at the time of probe presentation rather than CS valence based on propositional information about the function of the CS.