Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Department of Social Psychology and Methodology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Cogn Emot. 2020 Feb;34(1):21-41. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2019.1592118. Epub 2019 Mar 21.
Learning procedures such as mere exposure, evaluative conditioning, and approach/avoidance training have been used to establish evaluative responses as measured by the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In this paper, we used the Quad model to disentangle the processes driving IAT responses instantiated by these evaluative learning procedures. Half of the participants experienced one of these three procedures whereas the other half only received instructions about how the procedure would work. Across three experiments (total = 4231), we examined the extent to which instruction-based versus experience-based evaluative learning impacted Quad estimates of the Activation of evaluative information in IAT responses. Relative to a control condition, both instruction- and experience-based evaluative learning procedures influenced Activation. Moreover, and contrary to what prevailing models of implicit evaluations would predict, in no instance did experience-based procedures influence (positive or negative) Activation more strongly than instruction-based procedures. This was true for analyses which combined procedures and also when testing all three procedures individually. Implications for the processes that mediate evaluative learning effects and the conditions under which those processes operate are discussed.
学习程序,如单纯暴露、评价条件作用和趋近/回避训练,已被用于建立评价性反应,如内隐联想测验(IAT)所测量的。在本文中,我们使用 Quad 模型来区分这些评价性学习程序所产生的 IAT 反应的驱动过程。一半的参与者经历了这三种程序中的一种,而另一半只收到了关于程序如何运作的说明。在三个实验(总计 4231 人)中,我们考察了基于指令的评价性学习与基于经验的评价性学习在多大程度上影响了 Quad 对 IAT 反应中评价信息激活的估计。与对照条件相比,基于指令和基于经验的评价性学习程序都影响了激活。此外,与流行的内隐评价模型的预测相反,在任何情况下,基于经验的程序都没有比基于指令的程序更强烈地影响(正面或负面)激活。这既适用于综合程序的分析,也适用于单独测试所有三个程序的情况。讨论了中介评价学习效应的过程以及这些过程运作的条件的含义。