Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Chapter 5 The J/DM Separation Paradox and the Reliance on the Small Samples Hypothesis
- Chapter 6 Sampling as Preparedness in Evaluative Learning
- Chapter 7 The Dog that Didn’t Bark
- Chapter 8 Unpacking Intuitive and Analytic Memory Sampling in Multiple-Cue Judgment
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Chapter 6 - Sampling as Preparedness in Evaluative Learning
from Part II - Sampling Mechanisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2023
Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Chapter 5 The J/DM Separation Paradox and the Reliance on the Small Samples Hypothesis
- Chapter 6 Sampling as Preparedness in Evaluative Learning
- Chapter 7 The Dog that Didn’t Bark
- Chapter 8 Unpacking Intuitive and Analytic Memory Sampling in Multiple-Cue Judgment
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
Research into evaluative learning has focused almost exclusively on passive learning. That is, this research tradition is built on paradigms that minimize participants’ autonomy to exert control over the stimuli they learn about at a certain point in time. These paradigms thereby neglect the individuals’ preparedness to process certain information, although evidence is accumulating that individuals are not merely passive recipients of information but that they enrich stimuli with self-generated information. Moreover, in their daily lives, individuals have plenty of opportunities to create their own learning environments. This chapter first provides a definition of preparedness that embraces a constructivist view on evaluative learning. We then review the method and results of a recently developed sampling approach to evaluative learning and relate our findings back to our definition of preparedness. We show that the sampling approach to evaluative learning generates intriguing new findings and a variety of relevant questions for future research.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 131 - 152Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Albrecht, S., & Carbon, C. C. (2014). The fluency amplification model: Fluent stimuli show more intense but not evidently more positive evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 148, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeyens, F., Eelen, P., Crombez, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (1992). Human evaluative conditioning: Acquisition trials, presentation schedule, evaluative style and contingency awareness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30(2), 133–142.Google Scholar
Bar-Anan, Y., & Dahan, N. (2013). The effect of comparative context on evaluative conditioning. Social Cognition, 27, 367–375.Google ScholarPubMed
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6(1), 1–62.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. (1971). Personal responsibility and dissonance: The role of foreseen consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(3), 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corneille, O., & Stahl, C. (2019). Associative attitude learning: A closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 161–189.Google Scholar
Corneille, O., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Pleyers, G., & Mussweiler, T. (2009). Beyond awareness and resources: Evaluative conditioning may be sensitive to processing goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 279–282.Google Scholar
Davey, G. C. L. (1994). Is evaluative conditioning a qualitatively distinct form of classical conditioning? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(3), 291–299.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J. (2009). The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models. Learning and Behavior, 37, 1–20.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J. (2018). Propositional models of evaluative conditioning. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(3), e28046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delprato, D. J. (1980). Hereditary determinants of fears and phobias: A critical review. Behavior Therapy, 11, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112, 951–978.Google Scholar
Elwin, E., Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Enkvist, T. (2007). Constructivist coding: Learning from selective feedback. Psychological Science, 18, 105–110.Google Scholar
Fan, X., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lee, A. Y. (2021). Acquiring favorable attitudes based on aversive affective cues: Examining the spontaneity and efficiency of propositional evaluative conditioning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, Article 104139.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Eiser, J. R., & Shook, N. J. (2004). Attitude formation through exploration: valence asymmetries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 46–61.Google Scholar
Field, A. P., & Davey, G. C. L. (1999). Reevaluating evaluative conditioning: A nonassociative explanation of conditioning effects in the visual evaluative conditioning paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25(2), 211–224.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2018). Evaluative conditioning from the perspective of the associative-propositional evaluation model. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13, e28024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F., & Crombez, G. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390–421.Google Scholar
Hughes, S., Ye, Y., & De Houwer, J. (2019). Evaluative conditioning effects are modulated by the nature of contextual pairings. Cognition & Emotion, 33(5), 871–884.Google Scholar
Hütter, M., & Fiedler, K. (2016). Editorial: Conceptual, theoretical, and methodological challenges in evaluative conditioning research. Social Cognition, 34(5), 343–356.Google Scholar
Hütter, M., & Genschow, O. (2020). What is learned in approach-avoidance tasks? On the scope and generalizability of approach-avoidance effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1460–1476.Google Scholar
Hütter, M., Niese, Z. A., & Ihmels, M. (2022). Bridging the gap between autonomous and predetermined paradigms: The role of sampling in evaluative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(8), 1972–1998.Google Scholar
Hütter, M., & Sweldens, S. (2018). Dissociating controllable and uncontrollable effects of affective stimuli on attitudes and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 320–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. R., Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2009). Implicit misattribution as a mechanism underlying evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 933–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review, 104, 344–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawakami, K., Phills, C. E., Steele, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2007). (Close) distance makes the heart grow fonder: Improving implicit racial evaluations and interracial interactions through approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 957–971.Google Scholar
Landwehr, J. R., & Eckmann, L. (2020). The nature of processing fluency: Amplification versus hedonic marking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 103997.Google Scholar
Landwehr, J. R., Golla, B., & Reber, R. (2017). Processing fluency: An inevitable side effect of evaluative conditioning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 124–128.Google Scholar
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-8. Gainesville: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Le Mens, G., & Denrell, J. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379–392.Google Scholar
Levey, A. B., & Martin, I. (1975). Classical conditioning of human “evaluative” responses. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 13(4), 221–226.Google Scholar
Marchewka, A., Żurawski, Ł., Jednoróg, K., & Grabowska, A. (2014). The Nencki Affective Picture System (NAPS): Introduction to a novel, standardized, wide-range, high-quality, realistic picture database. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 596–610.Google Scholar
Martin, I., & Levey, A. (1994). The evaluative response: Primitive but necessary. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(3), 301–305.Google Scholar
Martin, I., & Levey, A. B. (1978). Evaluative conditioning. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(2), 57–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2001). Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 12, 413–417.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prager, J., Fiedler, K., & McCaughey, (2022). Thurstonian uncertainty in self-determined judgment and decision making. In Fiedler, Klaus, Juslin, Peter, & Denrell, Jerker (Eds.), Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 311–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prager, J., Krueger, J. I., & Fiedler, K. (2018). Towards a deeper understanding of impression formation: New insights gained from a cognitive-ecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 379–397.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. P. (1970). On the generality of the laws of learning. Psychological Review, 77, 406–418.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Oxford: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Sweldens, S., van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2010). Evaluative conditioning procedures and the resilience of conditioned brand attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 473–489.Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C., & Fiedler, K. (2016). Contrastive CS–US relations reverse evaluative conditioning effects. Social Cognition, 34, 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dessel, P., Hughes, S. J., & De Houwer, J. (2018). Consequence-based approach-avoidance training: A new and improved method for changing behavior. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1899–1910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walther, E., & Grigoriadis, S. (2004). Why sad people like shoes better: The influence of mood on the evaluative conditioning of consumer attitudes. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 755–773.Google Scholar
Wiers, R. W., Eberl, C., Rinck, M., Becker, E. S., & Lindenmeyer, J. (2011). Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome. Psychological Science, 22, 490–497.Google Scholar
Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation increases positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by