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

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

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

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 Event Behavior Association beer good

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

- 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 II. Empirical evidence

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

-Exp 3: Validity info only after all other info => Impact of relational info (validity) but reversal only if validity info is available during the pairings Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

2. Zanon et al. (in press, QJEP) a) Experiment 1 - Learn meaning of Turkish words (Bayram – Happy) - Procedure: * Before OR after pairings, info that Turkish and English words are antonyms * DV = IAT - Results BEFORE: -.08* AFTER:.05 (ns)  Less impact of relational info if after pairings * Due to associative processes (i.e., pairings as such)? * Due to default propositions (i.e., pairing as relational cue; “same”) Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

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

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: Implicit Cognition – ACBS Minneapolis – 19 June 2014

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