Search

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 n = 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.

Over the past decade an increasing number of studies across a range of domains have shown that the repeated performance of approach and avoidance (AA) actions in response to a stimulus leads to changes in the evaluation of that stimulus. The dominant (motivational-systems) account in this area claims that these effects are caused by a rewiring of mental associations between stimulus representations and AA systems that evolved to regulate distances to positive and negative stimuli. In contrast, two recently forwarded alternative accounts postulate that AA effects are caused by inferences about the valence of actions and stimuli (inferential account) or a transfer of valenced action codes to stimulus representations (common-coding account). Across four experiments we set out to test these three competing accounts against each other. Experiments 1-3 illustrate that changes in stimulus evaluations can occur when people perform valenced actions that bear no relation to a distance regulation, such as moving a manikin upward or downward. The observed evaluative effects were dependent on the evaluative implication of the instructed movement goal rather than whether the action implied a movement toward or away from the stimuli. These results could not be explained with a rewiring of associations to motivational systems. Experiment 4 showed that changes in stimulus evaluations occurred after participants passively observed approach-avoidance movements, supporting an explanation in terms of cognitive inferences.