The Influence of a Valence Focus on Evaluative

Conditioning

Anne Gast & Klaus RothermundUniversity of Jena

overview

• Evaluative Conditioning (EC)

• Is a focus on valence necessary for EC?– Experiment 1

• Mechanism of the valence focus– Experiment 2

• How specific is a valence focus?– Experiment 3

• General conclusions and discussion

Evaluative Conditioning (EC)(Martin & Levey, 1978)

• Pairing evaluatively neutral stimulus (CS) with positively or negatively evaluated stimulus (US)

CS changes valence towards US

(repeated) pairwise presentation post-conditioning rating

Research question 1:

Do Evaluative Conditioning effects only occur, if we focus on evaluation during conditioning?

– Earlier findings– Experiment 1

Disruptive influence of secondary task

Field & Moore (2005)

• Distraction prevents EC-effects• not due to cognitive capacity • Importance of a valence focus?

Research question 1

• Valence focus during conditioning has an influence on EC-effect

Is evaluative response during presentation of the pair decisive?

Is response toward stimulus associated with CS?

Positive valence

CS US

Positive valence

Positive valence

evaluation

CS-US-association

CS-evaluation-association

Possibly learned associations:

Former results on CS-US-associations

• US-revaluation

• Sensory preconditioning

US-revaluationPRO: Baeyens et al., 1992

1. CS is paired with valent US CS takes over US‘ valence

2. US is revaluated with opposite information CS does not change its valence

CONTRA: No US revaluation effect: Baeyens, et al., 1998

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

congruent revaluation incongruent revaluation

positive

negative

experiment 1

• Influence of task during conditioning (valence judgment vs. age judgment)

• Manipulation of specificity of CS-US-pairings

CS-evaluation-associationvalence judgment EC-effectage judgment no EC-effect

CS-US-associationspecific pairings strong EC-effectnon specific pairings weaker EC-effect

experiment 1: procedure1. Conditioning

2. Post-Rating

8 pictures as CS

32 adjectives as US

Choice of stimuli (pilot)

Positive or negative impression?

Valence task Age taskOld or young impression?

positive negative

Paired with…

healthy

8x

strong healthy flexible etc.

…8 different US from one category

How positive/negative?

…1 US

experiment 1: results

EC-effect F(1,60) = 9,75, p < .01, η = .14

EC * judgement F(1,60) = 4,89, p < .05, η = .075

EC * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.

EC * judgement * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

valence judgment age judgment

specific pairing non specific pairing

diff

eren

ce C

spos

– C

sneg * *

ns

ns

conclusion experiment 1

• Focus on valence is important

• Specificity of pairing is not important

Is the response given during conditioning associated with the CS?

research question 2:What is the mechanism?

• EC is due to association between CS and evaluation. Effect only if the response is evaluation

• EC is due to association between CS and US, but due to the non-evaluative task US-valence is temporarily inhibited Reactivation of US-valence returns effect

experiment 2: procedure

1. Conditiong

healthy

Valence vs. age judgement

2. US-Reactivation

Healthy

Positive or negative?

Evaluative reaction on single US

How positive/negative?

8x3. Post-rating

experiment 2: results

Main effect valence F(1,62) = 20.524, p < .001, η = .249

Valence * judgement F(1,62) < 1

** **

Conclusion from Exp 1 & 2

• non-evaluative task hinders EC- effect(Exp. 1)

• This is due to a surpression of US‘ valence if evaluation is not task relevant

• reactivation of US returns effect(Exp. 2)

CS-US-association + US-valence EC-effect!

Research question 3: How stimulus specific is the valence

focus effect?

• Is it the specific stimulus that is judged on valence that is „switched on“?

• Are all stimuli present in the context are „switched on“?

experiment 3 How specific is the valence focus?

Judgmental Task is manipulated within participants. Different CS-US-pairs are combined with the two different tasks:

Pair 1: US1 – CS1: valence task

Pair 2: US2 – CS2: age task

Pair 3: US1 – CS3: age task (but US is in valence task in pair 1)

Hypotheses:

Pair 1: EC-effect (valence of US is activated in these trials)

Pair 3: EC-effect (valence of US is activated, in other trials)

Pair 2: EC-effect (valence of US is not directly activated, however evaluation takes place in the context)

experiment 3: procedure

1. Conditiong 2. Post-rating

healthy

flexible

healthy

Pair 1:

evaluate!

Pair 2:

judge age!

Pair 3:

judge age!

US evaluated here

US evaluated in other pair

Evaluation in context

Effect here context based

Experiment 3 – results

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

evaluationtask

evaluated inother pair

age task

CS

-ev

alu

ati

on

aft

er

co

nd

itio

nin

g

positive

negative

df F p partial η2

EC-effect (1,57) 4.724 < .05 .077

EC * Focus (2,114) < 1

+

ns

ns

conclusion experiment 3

• Evaluative focus is not stimulus specific. In a context were some stimuli are evaluated the valence of all other similar stimuli is active aswell.

General conclusions• Evaluative Effects are only found if an evaluative

focus is active during the learning trials

• This is due to temporal supression of stimulus valence if only non-evaluative dimensions are considered.

• If the valence of only some stimuli is task relevant, this is enough for all stimuli‘s valence to be activated.

• Evaluative learning takes places in evaluative contexts and less when attention is on other dimensions

Thank you for your attention!

Experiment 1 : resultsMediation analysis of valence judgment (itemwise)

US valence

judgment

CS valence

β = .794*** β = .719***

β = .211* (without judgment)

β = -.359** (with judgment)

Judgment: Times judged positive – times judged negative during conditioning

experiment 1 (unspecific pairings): results

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

valence task age task

CS pos

CS neg

Main effect US-type: F(30, 1) = 2.41, p = .131

US-type*task: F(30,1) = 3.875, p = .058, ηpartial2 = .114

US-type under valence task: t(15) = 2.481, p < .05, d = .62

US-type under age task: t(15) = -.295, p = .772

Experiment 1: „valence focus“

Manipulated: task focus indirectly via a secondary task during conditioning

1. Categorize in respect to valence

2. Categorize in respect to style

3. Control: no task

Experiment 2: procedure3. conditioning1. Baseline-

evaluation4. Post-conditioning-evaluation

N-D N-L

choice

CS + US

4 pairs 4 pairs

USnegCS CSUSpos

Pairwise presentation (5x)

Do you like this garment? Casual or evening?

valence task style task

Experiment 2: results Evaluative conditioning effects (difference CSpos – CSneg)

under different task foci

Main effect valence: F(1,97) = 23.369, p< .001, ηpartial2 = .194

US-valence x task: F(2,97) = 2.61, p = .079, ηpartial2 = .194

Contrast style task – valence task and control: t(99) = 1.892, p = .061

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

valence task style task no task

high cog. Load

low cog. Load

experiment 2: results

Sensory Pre-conditioning

Hammerl & Grabitz, 1996; Walther, 2002

1. CS1 (neutral) is paired with CS2 (neutral)

2. Only CS1 is paired with US (valent)

CS1 changes into the direction of the US

also CS2 changes into direction of US

Walther (2002), experiment 1 Walther (2002), experiment 2

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

direct pairing sensorypreconditioning

positive

control

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

direct pairing sensorypreconditioning

negative

control

results of studies on US-revaluation and sensory pre-conditioning

• After pairing CS-valence depends on US-valence.

• After pairing CS-valence depends not on US-valence.

majority of evidence speaks for CS-US-associations

experiment 1

design1. valence of US (within)2. Age of US (within)3. judgment task during conditioning (age/valence; between)4. Specificity of CS-US-pairing between)

Conditioning procedurePicture-CS is paired with positive or negative adjectives

materialCS: 8 pre-chosen portrait fotos (pre-study N = 38): neutral on the dimensions age and valence

US: prechosen adjectives (pre-studies N = 17/22/15):8 positive/young, 8 positive/old, 8 negative/young, 8 negative/old

Conditioning trials: 500 ms CS only, 2200 ms CS & US, 1000 ms CS, US & response

Task: judgment of picture and word as a whole (age or valence)

experiment 1: results

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

specific non specific specific non specific

valence judgement age judgement

CS

-rat

ing

aft

er c

on

dit

ion

ing

paired positive

paired negative

EC-effect F(1,60) = 9,75, p < .01, η = .14

EC * judgement F(1,60) = 4,89, p < .05, η = .075

EC * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.

EC * judgement * specificity F(1,60) < 1, ns.

valence-judgement, specific pairing t(15) = 2.419, p < .05, d = .61

valence-judgement, non specific pairing t(15) = 2.481, p < .05, d = .62

age-judgement, specific pairing t(15) = 1.509, p = .152, ns.

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

valence judgment age judgment

specific pairing non specific pairing

difference Cspos – Csneg

experiment 2bincreased power - specific pairing, age judgement

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

positive pairing negative pairing

CS

-rat

ing

s af

ter

con

dit

ion

ing

EC-effect t(31) = 1.059, p = .298

power-analysis (α = .05; d = .62; N = 32): β =.924

experiment 2: results

Main effect valence F(1,62) = 20.524, p < .001, η = .249

Valence * judgement F(1,62) < 1

Valence in valence judgement F(1,31) = 8.732, p < .01, η = .22

Valence in age judgement F(1,31) =, 11.805, p < ,01, η = .276

Valence * Reinstatement F(1,62) = 3.775, p = .057, η = .057

Results experiment 3

df F p partial η2

Valence 6.86 <.05 .132

Awareness 1.823 .184 .039

Valence*Awareness 6.72 <.05 .13

experiment 3: procedure

1. Conditiong 2. Post-conditioning-rating

Positive or negative impression?

Valence task Age taskOld or young impression?

positive negative

Paired with…

e.g. Healthy

8x

multi-cultura

l

healthy flexibleetc.

…8 different US from one category

How positive/negative?

…1 US

2. US-Reinstatement

Healthy

Positive or

negative?

Evaluative reaction on single US

Results experiment 3

df F p partial η2

Valenz (1,124) 26.273 < .001 .175

Valenz * task (1,124) < 1 .007

Valenz * Spec (1,124) 1.220 .271 .010

Valenz * task * Spec (1,124) < 1 .001

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

valence task age task valence task age task

specific pairing unspecific pairing

Eva

lua

tio

n a

fte

r co

nd

itio

nin

g

positive

negative

***** +

Experiment 1,2 & 3: results

df F p partial η2

EC-effect (1,264) 40.220 < .001 .132EC * judgement (1,264) 8.012 <.01 .029EC * Spec (1,264) < 1EC * judgement * reactivation

(1,264) 4.65 <.05 .017

EC * judgement * Spec * reactivation

(1,264) < 1