Relational responding modulates and reverses affective ratings in evaluative conditioning

The impact of arbitrarily applicable relational responding on evaluative learning about hypothetical money and shock outcomes

“…This reversal of preference, such that the CS paired with the smallest hypothetical shock (AShock) was rated more positively than the CS paired with the smallest amount of hypothetical money (AMoney), replicated our earlier findings (Molet et al, 2013). Additionally, AShock did not differ from BMoney, and AMoney did not differ from BShock, p's = .70 and .80, respectively; but AShock was lower than CMoney, F(1,22) = 5.64, p < .03, whereas AMoney was higher than CShock, F(1,22) = 7.84, p < .01.…”

“…The present findings add to research supporting the role of relational processes in evaluative learning Hughes et al,, 2016;Molet et al, 2013;Zanon et al, 2012Zanon et al, , 2014. More specifically, we showed that arbitrary relational properties, which were manipulated through relational information presented (Experiment 1) or contextually trained (Experiment 2) involving more than and less than relations between the CSs, critically determine subsequent evaluations of those CSs.…”

“…Such a design would be capable of unambiguously detecting the effects Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 00:21 28 June 2016 of arbitrarily applicable relational responding (Hughes et al, 2011), as well as mitigating any potential demand effects. Future research should address these issues and extend the present findings by testing for the effects of a reversal in the arbitrary relational network on implicit and explicit evaluations (Molet et al, 2013;Reilly et al, 2005).…”

“…As we have suggested previously (Molet et al, 2013), the reversal effect in evaluative ratings may be interpreted as a scaling effect (Frederick & Mochon, 2012) in which a shift occurs in the use of the valence scale itself rather than through any explicit, controlled evaluation of the CS. That is, more positive ratings of CSs paired with the smallest US-than CSs paired with Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 00:21 28 June 2016 smallest US+ may have occurred because participants based their evaluations of the CS under question by comparing it with related CSs of the same type.…”

“…RFT's emphasis on relational responding is critical for evaluative learning because it allows specific predictions to be made about the outcomes of patterns of transformation determined by the relations that obtain between the particular stimuli involved (Dymond & Roche, 2013;Hayes et al, 2001;Stewart & McElwee, 2009). Molet, Macquet and Charley (2013) trained participants on a relational responding procedure embedded within a novel evaluative learning paradigm in order to explore the ways in which stimuli are related potentially influencing evaluative ratings. The participants were trained Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 00:21 28 June 2016 to order various stimuli in boxes by size (i.e., three CSs of small, medium, and large sizes).…”