Retrieval cues fail to influence contextualized evaluations

ABSTRACT

Initial evaluations generalise to new contexts, whereas counter-attitudinal evaluations are context-specific. Counter-attitudinal information may not change evaluations in new contexts because perceivers fail to retrieve counter-attitudinal cue-evaluation associations from memory outside the counter-attitudinal learning context. The current work examines whether an additional, counter-attitudinal retrieval cue can enhance the generalizability of counter-attitudinal evaluations. In four experiments, participants learned positive information about a target person, Bob, in one context, and then learned negative information about Bob in a different context. While learning the negative information, participants wore a wristband as a retrieval cue for counter-attitudinal Bob-negative associations. Participants then made speeded as well as deliberate evaluations of Bob while wearing or not wearing the wristband. Internal meta-analysis failed to find a reliable effect of the counter-attitudinal retrieval cue on speeded or deliberate evaluations, whereas the context cues influenced speeded and deliberate evaluations. Counter to predictions, counter-attitudinal retrieval cues did not disrupt the generalisation of first-learned evaluations or the context-specificity of second-learned evaluations (Experiments 2–4), but the counter-attitudinal retrieval cue did influence evaluations in the absence of context cues (Experiment 1). The current work provides initial evidence that additional counter-attitudinal retrieval cues fail to disrupt the renewal and generalizability of first-learned evaluations.

KEYWORDS:

• Contextualised attitude change
• retrieval cues
• evaluative conditioning

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Ryan J. Hutchings http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0850-1171

Notes

1 There is also an extensive literature on retrieval cues in nonhuman animal models of associative learning (for a review, see Rosas et al., 2013).

2 We use the same exclusion criteria in all the studies.

3 Responses with a reaction time greater than 800 ms were eliminated in all the studies. Previous work examining speeded evaluations has applied a similar response deadline (Ranganath, Smith, & Nosek, 2008). According to this criterion, 3.86%, 7.90%, 7.72%, and 4.29% of trials were trimmed from Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively.

4 In Study 2 and Study 3, the background screen color contexts were counterbalanced between participants, with some participants receiving a blue positive context followed by a yellow negative context and some participants receiving a yellow positive context followed by a blue negative context. The novel context was always a white background screen color. We found no effects of color, so we report all results collapsed across this variable in Study 2 and Study 3.

5 Maulchy’s Test for Sphericity indicated that the sphericity assumption was violated for this test, W = .74, p < .001. To correct for bias, the Hunyh-Feldt correction was applied.

6 Maulchy’s Test for Sphericity indicated that the sphericity assumption was violated for this test, W = .85, p < .001. To correct for bias, the Hunyh-Feldt correction was applied. This correction was also applied to the Wristband at Evaluation × Context two-way interaction.

7 Maulchy’s Test for Sphericity indicated that the sphericity assumption was violated for this test, W = .89, p < .001. To correct for bias, the Hunyh-Feldt correction was applied.

8 Maulchy’s Test for Sphericity indicated that the sphericity assumption was violated for this test, W = .92, p < .001. To correct for bias, the Hunyh-Feldt correction was applied. This correction was also applied to the Context × Target interaction.

9 We tested the significance of each contrast using a Wald’s test derived from the contrast estimate and the contrast variance-covariance matrix.