Unintentional response priming from verbal action–effect instructions

Abstract

Action–effect learning is based on a theoretical concept that actions are associated with their perceivable consequences through bidirectional associations. Past research has mostly investigated how these bidirectional associations are formed through actual behavior and perception of the consequences. The present research expands this idea by investigating how verbally formulated action–effect instructions contribute to action–effect learning. In two online experiments (Exp. 1, N = 41, student sample; Exp. 2, N = 349, non-student sample), participants memorized a specific action–effect instruction before completing a speeded categorization task. We assessed the consequences of the instructions by presenting the instructed effect as an irrelevant stimulus in the classification task and compared response errors and response times for instruction-compatible and instruction-incompatible responses. Overall, we found evidence that verbal action–effect instructions led to associations between an action and perception (effect) that are automatically activated upon encountering the previously verbally presented effect. In addition, we discuss preliminary evidence suggesting that the order of the action–effect components plays a role; only instructions in a perception–action order showed the expected effect. The present research contributes evidence to the idea that action–effect learning is not exclusively related to actual behavior but also achievable through verbally formulated instructions, thereby providing a flexible learning mechanism that does not rely on specific actual experiences.

Situational Cues in Thoughts About the Future

“…More importantly, we provide a central missing aspect to that idea: How are these beneficial habits formed in the first place? Habitually thinking about future actions along with relevant situational cues may establish beneficial stimulus–response links (such as habits) that facilitate the expression of novel behavior in the presence of the situational cue (Martiny-Huenger et al, 2015, 2017a,b; see also Damanskyy et al, 2022). Although our present empirical focus (Study 2) was on the execution of a novel situation–behavior relation, any habit formation requires this first step.…”

“…Thus, the question arises of how novel intended behaviors are initially facilitated so that they can become beneficial habits. One potential answer is that processing verbal information that includes a stimulus and a response acts as a substitute for the direct stimulus–response experiences that typically lead to habit formation (Gollwitzer, 1999; Martiny-Huenger et al, 2015, 2017a,b; see also Damanskyy et al, 2022). For example, verbal situation–response links in the form of if-then action plans (e.g., “When I enter the grocery store, then I will go to the fruit and vegetable section”) have been shown to facilitate the implementation of novel behavior in the specified situation (implementation intentions; reviewed by Bieleke et al, 2021; Gollwitzer & Crosby, 2018; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).…”

Associative Learning from Verbal Action-Effect Instructions: A Replication and Investigation of Underlying Mechanisms

“…The results showed a compatibility effect in the diagnostic task, pointing to an effect of the instructions on the subsequent performance. Damanskyy et al (2022) also provided evidence that action-effect instructions produce a compatibility effect, but with some conceptual changes. While the results of Theeuwes et al (2015) can be explained by participants holding the action-effect instructions in working memory, the procedure of Damanskyy et al made it less likely that the verbal instructions were held in working memory by creating a stronger separation between the action-effect instructions (learning phase) and the test phase.…”

“…While this may be interpreted as evidence for readily observable action-effect learning (i.e., early in the test phase) following instructed action-effect contingencies, the contribution of the instructions in Eder and Dignath (2017) are not clearly separable from the effect of learning from the first direct experiences in the test phase or from instruction/direct-experience interactions. Most relevant to our present focus are two recent publications that report studies with a clearer separation of instructions and direct experiences (Damanskyy et al, 2022;Theeuwes et al, 2015).…”

“…The experimental procedure in these two recent publications on verbal action-effect instructions (Damanskyy et al, 2022;Theeuwes et al, 2015) is similar to those that induce learning based on direct experiences. However, in the learning phase, instead of performing an action and perceiving the effect, participants see verbal instructions for specific action-effect relationships.…”