1 / 14

Implicit Cognition: A Functional-Cognitive Perspective

Implicit Cognition: A Functional-Cognitive Perspective. Jan De Houwer Ghent University, Belgium. Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014. I. Functional-Cognitive Framework for Implicit Cognition. Cognitive: 2nd level of explanation.

uttara
Download Presentation

Implicit Cognition: A Functional-Cognitive Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implicit Cognition:A Functional-Cognitive Perspective • Jan De Houwer • Ghent University, Belgium Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  2. I. Functional-Cognitive Framework for Implicit Cognition Cognitive: 2nd level of explanation The fact that statistical contingency increases salivation is due to formation of associations in memory Functional: 1st level of explanation Increase in salivation is due to pairing of bell and food = classical conditioning as an effect Environment: Description e.g., time 1: bell - no salivation; time 2: food; ITI=10; time 3: bell = 2 drops salivation; … Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

  3. Behavior Event • Applied to Implicit Cognition: • FUNCTIONAL: Automatic impact of events on behavior • COGNITIVE: Mental processes that mediate automatic impact Event Mental Processes Behavior Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  4. Event Behavior Association • Dominance of associative theories of implicit cognition: • * implicit evaluation as the result of a known mechansim • * sources: repeated pairings • * no impact of type of relation • => Habit-like, non-relational responding beer good

  5. “beer is good” • Automatic construction or activation of propositions (Hughes et al., 2011, Psych Rec; DH, in press, SPPC) • * implicitevaluation as the result of knownmechanisms • - automatic comparisonwith goals (appraisal; Moors et al., 2005) • - automatic application of tasks (Van Opstal et al., 2011) • - automatic retrieval of oldpropositionsfrom memory • * sources: experience, goals, instructions, inferences • *Impact of type of relation • LINK to REC model: IC effects are instances of automatic rel responding

  6. II. Empirical evidence • - Limit to “implicit evaluation” / “implicit attitudes” research • = automatic impact of stimuli on evaluative behavior • (as indexed by implicit measures such as Implicit Association Test, Evaluative Priming, Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure; see Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014) • - Limit to impact of relational information on implicit evaluation Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  7. 1. Peters & Gawronski (2011, PSPB) • - Impression formation: Info about new colleagues that are true or false • * Person 1: good – true • * Person 2: good – false • * Person 3: bad – true • * Person 4: bad – false • - Exp 1 & Exp 2: • Immediate • validity info Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  8. Exp 3: Validity info onlyafterallother info • => Impact of relational info (validity) but reversalonlyifvalidity info is availableduring the pairings Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  9. 2. Zanon et al. (in press, QJEP) • a) Experiment 1 • - Learnmeaning of Turkishwords (Bayram – Happy) • - Procedure: * Before OR afterpairings, info thatTurkishand English words are antonyms • * DV = IAT • - Results • BEFORE: -.08* • AFTER: .05 (ns) • Less impact of relational info ifafterpairings • * Duetoassociativeprocesses (i.e., pairings as such)? • * Dueto default propositions (i.e., pairing as relational cue; “same”) Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  10. b) Experiment 2 • - Learn meaning of Turkish words (Bayram – Happy) • - Procedure: • * Before AND after pairings, info that Turkish and English words are antonyms or synomyms • * also condition without relational instructions • * DV = IAT • - Results • => implicit evaluation depends more on first info (synonym or antonym) • => 2 x synomym instruction has same effect as no instruction • - Conclusion: mere act of pairing is a cue for equivalence (similarity) Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  11. 3. Remue et al. (in press): Impact of relational information during implicit evaluation • - positive implicit evaluation of self in depressed patients • (e.g., self-esteem IAT: I, other, positive, negative) • - could be due to fact that measures capture “I WANT TO BE GOOD” • proposition rather than “I AM GOOD” • - IRAP (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2010, The Psychological Record) • also see: http://irapresearch.org Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  12. Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  13. Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

  14. III. Mutual supportive nature of functional and cognitive approach • 1. What can the functional approach offer?: • - mental free way of talking about implicit cognition • => maximizes freedom of cognitive models • - REC provides ideas about time and complexity • - RFT: implicit cognition as one instance of AARR • => prediction on the basis of analogy • 2. What can cognitive approach offer? • - propositional models currently add little beyond relational but more complex models can be developed, in part on evidence generated by research in functional tradition • - itterative processing: Cunningham (2007, Soc Cognition) Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

More Related