练习对自动评估的影响注册复制

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Anat Shechter , Mayan Navon , Yoav Bar-Anan
{"title":"练习对自动评估的影响注册复制","authors":"Anat Shechter ,&nbsp;Mayan Navon ,&nbsp;Yoav Bar-Anan","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>A basic idea in cognitive science is that practicing a response can lead to the automatic activation of the response. </span><span>Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, and Kardes (1986)</span> tested that idea on the automatic activation of attitudes. In the experiment that Fazio et al. conducted, participants (<em>N</em> = 18) repeatedly categorized eight nouns as good/bad and eight nouns (the <em>control</em> words) as having one syllable or more. The measure of automatic activation of attitudes was evaluative priming: Participants categorized target adjectives as good/bad faster if their valence matched the valence of a prime noun that appeared before them. This priming effect was stronger for repeatedly evaluated words than for control words. Many have cited this article as evidence that practice automatizes evaluation, but the published research that followed focused on the evaluative priming effect, providing only one incidental and unsuccessful replication for the effect of practice on automatic evaluation. In light of the importance of this finding on the one hand, and the lack of a solid evidential basis for it on the other hand, we conducted three experiments that tested the effect of practice on evaluative priming effect. We attempted to directly replicate the original procedure in Experiments 1a and 1b (<em>N</em> = 108, 102, respectively), with Experiment 1b fixing an unintended prime-target contingency in Experiment 1a. Experiment 2 (<em>N</em> = 172) provided a conceptual replication with modified procedures. Practice in evaluation increased priming only in Experiment 1a. The inconsistent results prevent strong conclusions that practicing an evaluative response automates it, necessitating further research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of practice on automatic evaluation: A registered replication\",\"authors\":\"Anat Shechter ,&nbsp;Mayan Navon ,&nbsp;Yoav Bar-Anan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>A basic idea in cognitive science is that practicing a response can lead to the automatic activation of the response. </span><span>Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, and Kardes (1986)</span> tested that idea on the automatic activation of attitudes. In the experiment that Fazio et al. conducted, participants (<em>N</em> = 18) repeatedly categorized eight nouns as good/bad and eight nouns (the <em>control</em> words) as having one syllable or more. The measure of automatic activation of attitudes was evaluative priming: Participants categorized target adjectives as good/bad faster if their valence matched the valence of a prime noun that appeared before them. This priming effect was stronger for repeatedly evaluated words than for control words. Many have cited this article as evidence that practice automatizes evaluation, but the published research that followed focused on the evaluative priming effect, providing only one incidental and unsuccessful replication for the effect of practice on automatic evaluation. In light of the importance of this finding on the one hand, and the lack of a solid evidential basis for it on the other hand, we conducted three experiments that tested the effect of practice on evaluative priming effect. We attempted to directly replicate the original procedure in Experiments 1a and 1b (<em>N</em> = 108, 102, respectively), with Experiment 1b fixing an unintended prime-target contingency in Experiment 1a. Experiment 2 (<em>N</em> = 172) provided a conceptual replication with modified procedures. Practice in evaluation increased priming only in Experiment 1a. The inconsistent results prevent strong conclusions that practicing an evaluative response automates it, necessitating further research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001440\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001440","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知科学的一个基本观点是,练习某种反应会导致反应的自动激活。Fazio、Sanbonmatsu、Powell 和 Kardes(1986 年)对态度的自动激活进行了测试。在 Fazio 等人进行的实验中,参与者(N = 18)反复将 8 个名词归类为好/坏,将 8 个名词(对照词)归类为有一个音节或更多音节。自动激活态度的测量方法是评价性引物:如果目标形容词的词性与前面出现的主要名词的词性一致,那么受试者就会更快地将目标形容词归类为好/坏。与对照词相比,重复评价词的这种引物效应更强。许多人引用这篇文章作为练习能使评价自动化的证据,但随后发表的研究都集中在评价性引物效应上,只偶然地、不成功地复制了练习对自动评价的影响。一方面鉴于这一发现的重要性,另一方面鉴于缺乏坚实的证据基础,我们进行了三个实验来检验练习对评价引物效应的影响。我们尝试在实验 1a 和 1b 中直接复制原始程序(实验人数分别为 108 人和 102 人),其中实验 1b 固定了实验 1a 中意外的素材-目标或然率。实验 2(N = 172)在概念上复制了修改后的程序。只有在实验 1a 中,评价练习增加了引物。这些不一致的结果使我们无法得出练习评价性反应会使其自动化的有力结论,因此有必要进行进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effect of practice on automatic evaluation: A registered replication

A basic idea in cognitive science is that practicing a response can lead to the automatic activation of the response. Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, and Kardes (1986) tested that idea on the automatic activation of attitudes. In the experiment that Fazio et al. conducted, participants (N = 18) repeatedly categorized eight nouns as good/bad and eight nouns (the control words) as having one syllable or more. The measure of automatic activation of attitudes was evaluative priming: Participants categorized target adjectives as good/bad faster if their valence matched the valence of a prime noun that appeared before them. This priming effect was stronger for repeatedly evaluated words than for control words. Many have cited this article as evidence that practice automatizes evaluation, but the published research that followed focused on the evaluative priming effect, providing only one incidental and unsuccessful replication for the effect of practice on automatic evaluation. In light of the importance of this finding on the one hand, and the lack of a solid evidential basis for it on the other hand, we conducted three experiments that tested the effect of practice on evaluative priming effect. We attempted to directly replicate the original procedure in Experiments 1a and 1b (N = 108, 102, respectively), with Experiment 1b fixing an unintended prime-target contingency in Experiment 1a. Experiment 2 (N = 172) provided a conceptual replication with modified procedures. Practice in evaluation increased priming only in Experiment 1a. The inconsistent results prevent strong conclusions that practicing an evaluative response automates it, necessitating further research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信