Automatic processes in evaluative learning

Hütter, Mandy; Rothermund, Klaus

doi:10.1080/02699931.2019.1709315

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is still feasible that multiple-session or longitudinal AAT would negate the effects of other factors, such as existing values. The distinction between values and behavioral tendencies is further corroborated by the effects of evaluative conditioning 62 , where it is repeatedly shown that changes in preferences are not necessarily accompanied by alterations in the choice behavior 63-65 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neural correlates of changing food choices while bypassing values

Zahedi

Artigas

Swaboda

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theories suggest that altering choices requires value modification. To investigate this, normal-weight participants' food choices and values were tested before and after an approach-avoidance training (AAT), while neural activity was recorded during the choice task using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). During AAT, participants consistently approached low- while avoiding high-calorie food cues. AAT facilitated low-calorie food choices, leaving food values unchanged. Instead, we observed a shift in indifference points, indicating the decreased contribution of food values in food choices. Training-induced choice shifts were associated with increased activity in the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). In contrast, the medial PFC activity was not changed. Additionally, PCC grey matter density predicted individual differences in training-induced functional changes, suggesting anatomic predispositions to training impact. Our findings demonstrate neural mechanisms underlying choice modulation independent of valuation-related processes, with substantial theoretical significance for decision-making frameworks and translational implications for health-related decisions resilient to value shifts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The distinction between values and behavioral tendencies is further corroborated by the effects of evaluative conditioning 62 , where it is repeatedly shown that changes in preferences are not necessarily accompanied by alterations in the choice behavior [63][64][65] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Neural correlates of changing food choices while bypassing values

Zahedi

Artigas

Swaboda

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More generally, it is also important to distinguish between the associative learning assumptions versus associative expression assumptions of dual-process theories of attitudes (see Hütter & Rothermund, 2020, for an integrative framework). For instance, the APE model assumes that IAEs result from retrieval processes that reflect the mere activation of memory content without validation of this activated content (e.g., Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006, 2011).…”

Section: Disparate Views On the “Implicit” Construct In Attitude Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit? What Do You Mean? A Comprehensive Review of the Delusive Implicitness Construct in Attitude Research

Corneille

Hütter

2020

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

Self Cite

126

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a comprehensive review of divergent conceptualizations of the “implicit” construct that have emerged in attitude research over the past two decades. In doing so, our goal is to raise awareness of the harmful consequences of conceptual ambiguities associated with this terminology. We identify three main conceptualizations of the “implicitness” construct: the procedural conceptualization (implicit-as-indirect), the functional conceptualization (implicit-as-automatic), and the mental theory conceptualization (implicit-as-associative), as well as two hybrid conceptualizations (implicit-as-indirect-and-automatic, implicit-as-driven-by-affective-gut-reactions). We discuss critical limitations associated with each conceptualization and explain that confusion also arises from their coexistence. We recommend discontinuing the usage of the “implicit” terminology in attitude research and research inspired by it. We offer terminological alternatives aimed at increasing both the precision of theorization and the practical value of future research.

show abstract

“…In the present experiments, all we know is how participants evaluated the stimuli and felt about them. These outcomes are the end product of multiple processes, including, but not limited to, attention paid to the information, how the information was interpreted, the consolidation of this interpretation, its subsequent retrieval, and how the recollected memories were used to produce an evaluation (see, e.g., Gast, 2018;H€ utter & Rothermund, 2020;Stahl & Aust, 2018). Because the current findings are, in part, based on correct responses, this weakens the possibility that the results were driven by trials in which participants were not attentive to or did not correctly interpret, retrieve, or use the relational information.…”

Section: Interpretation Of the Present Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does co-occurrence information influence evaluations beyond relational meaning? An investigation using self-reported and mouse-tracking measures of attitudinal ambivalence.

Béna¹,

Mauclet²,

Corneille³

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People occasionally encounter information of which the structure bears divergent evaluative implications. For instance, when reading that a sunscreen protects against skin cancer, the relational meaning of the information (i.e., "protects against skin cancer") has positive evaluative implications for the sunscreen, whereas the co-occurrence (of "sunscreen" with "skin cancer") is negative. An important theoretical (and practical) issue is whether the co-occurrence information influences people's evaluations beyond the relational meaning of the information. This question has been recently investigated using task comparison procedures (comparing evaluative outcomes on different tasks) and process dissociation procedures (estimating relational and co-occurrence parameters within a given task). In this article, we report four experiments that examined this question by reducing interpretational ambiguities inherent in the two preceding approaches. This was achieved by using self-reported and mouse-tracking measures of ambivalence. We reasoned that when co-occurrence and relational information have divergent (rather than convergent) evaluative implications, more ambivalence should be found. We tested this prediction in experiential (Experiments 1 to 3) and instructed (Experiment 4) procedures. Higher self-reported ambivalence was found in divergent compared to convergent conditions in all experiments. Ambivalence, as estimated with mouse-tracking measures, was higher in divergent than in convergent conditions in the experiential experiments but not in the instructed experiment. Results are discussed with reference to single-process (propositional and episodic) and dual-process attitude learning models.

show abstract

Automatic processes in evaluative learning

Cited by 12 publications

References 119 publications

Neural correlates of changing food choices while bypassing values

Neural correlates of changing food choices while bypassing values

Implicit? What Do You Mean? A Comprehensive Review of the Delusive Implicitness Construct in Attitude Research

Does co-occurrence information influence evaluations beyond relational meaning? An investigation using self-reported and mouse-tracking measures of attitudinal ambivalence.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About