An adaptive-learning approach to affect regulation: Strategic influences on evaluative priming

Abstract

An adaptive cognition approach to evaluative priming is not compatible with the view that the entire process is automatically determined by prime stimulus valence alone. In addition to the evaluative congruity of individual prime–target pairs, an adaptive regulation function should be sensitive to the base rates of positive and negative stimuli as well as to the perceived contingency between prime and target valence. The present study was particularly concerned with pseudocontingent inferences that offer a proxy for the assessment of contingencies from degraded or incomplete stimulus input. As expected, response latencies were shorter for the more prevalent target valence and for evaluatively congruent trials. However, crucially, the congruity effect was eliminated and overridden by pseudocontingencies inferred from the stimulus environment. These strategic inferences were further enhanced when the task called for the evaluation of both prime stimuli and target stimuli.

Keywords:

• Evaluative priming
• Pseudocontingencies
• Adaptive cognition

Notes

¹One may wonder at this point whether the enhanced number of incongruent trials in the PC– condition may give rise to an interpretation of our data in terms of a Gratton effect (Gratton, Coles, & Donchin, 1992), that is, in terms of a reduced interference in the necessarily larger number of trials following evaluatively incongruent prime–target pairs in the PC– condition. Note, however, that such an interpretation is limited to the prediction of a diminished congruency effect (Frings & Wentura, 2008). The notion of reduced interference is not compatible, however, with a reversal of the sign of the congruency effect obtained in each of the three stages of the present study.

²A PC×Task Focus×Congruity×Time ANOVA of the pooled latencies obtained in Stage 1 and Stage 2 with repeated measures on the last two variables yielded a main effect of Congruity, F(1, 69) = 14.96, p<.001, and a substantial main effect of Time, F(1, 69) = 393.63, p<.001, reflecting practice effects. Importantly, the PC×Congruity interaction, F(1, 69) = 41.15, p<.001, was qualified by the anticipated four-way interaction involving the Task Focus and Time variables, F(1, 69) = 4.15, p<.001. This finding reflects the increased reliability of the PC effect in the P + T conditions at Stage 2. All other F tests fell short of significance (Fs < 3.8).

³A PC×task focus×congruity×time ANOVA of the pooled latencies obtained in Stage 2 and Stage 3 with repeated measures on the last two variables yielded main effects of PC, F(1, 69) = 4.92, p<.05, Congruity, F(1, 69) = 13.86, p<.001, and time, F(1, 69) = 20.99, p<.001, as well as a PC×Congruity interaction, F(1, 69) = 118.53, p<.001, and a task focus×congruity interaction, F(1, 69) = 7.31, p<.01, which was qualified by a marginally significant four-way interaction involving the time variable, F(1, 69) = 2.77, p=.10, reflecting the reduced impact of the (Stage 2) task focus manipulation at Stage 3.

⁴A PC×task focus×congruity×time ANOVA of the pooled latencies obtained in Stage 1 and Stage 3 with repeated measures on the last two variables yielded main effects of congruity, F(1, 69) = 16.26, p<.001, and time, F(1, 69) = 502.10, p<.001. Apart from a strong PC × congruity interaction, F(1, 69) = 46.68, p<.001, only a congruity×time interaction emerged, F(1, 69) = 4.79, p<.10, reflecting somewhat enhanced congruity effects after extended training. Importantly, however, no interactions involving (Stage 2) task focus were found in this analysis (Fs < 2, ns).