scholarly journals Preprint GlautierAndBrudan2018 Revised Stable Individual Differences in Occasion Setting

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Glautier ◽  
Ovidiu Brudan
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Conditioned Response ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Reversal Training ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
Occasion Setting ◽  
Bayesian Analyses ◽  
Ambiguous Information ◽  
First Order ◽  
Feature Negative

There is a revised version at https://osf.io/uspdb/ In the current investigation we classified participants as inhibitors or non-inhibitors depending on the extent to which they showed conditioned inhibition in a context thathad been used for extinction of a conditioned response. This classification enabled us to predict participant responses in a second experiment which used a different design and a different experimental task. In the second experiment a feature-negative discrimination survived reversal training of the feature to a greater extent in thenon-inhibitors than in the inhibitors and this result was supported by Bayesian analyses. We propose that the fundamental distinction between inhibitors andnon-inhibitors is based on a tendency to utilise first-order (direct associations) or second-order (occasion-setting) strategies when faced with ambiguous information andthat this classification is a stable individual differences attribute.

scholarly journals Stable Individual Differences in Occasion Setting

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 281-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Glautier ◽  
Ovidiu Brudan
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Conditioned Response ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Reversal Training ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
Occasion Setting ◽  
Bayesian Analyses ◽  
Ambiguous Information ◽  
First Order ◽  
Feature Negative

Abstract. In the current investigation, we classified participants as inhibitors or non-inhibitors depending on the extent to which they showed conditioned inhibition in a context that had been used for extinction of a conditioned response. This classification enabled us to predict participant responses in a second experiment which used a different design and a different experimental task. In the second experiment a feature-negative discrimination survived reversal training of the feature to a greater extent in the non-inhibitors than in the inhibitors and this result was supported by Bayesian analyses. We propose that the fundamental distinction between inhibitors and non-inhibitors is based on a tendency to utilize first-order (direct associations) or second-order (occasion-setting) strategies when faced with ambiguous information and that this classification is a stable individual differences attribute.

scholarly journals Preprint GlautierAndBrudan2018 Stable Individual Differences in Occasion Setting

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Glautier ◽  
Ovidiu Brudan
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Conditioned Response ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Reversal Training ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
Occasion Setting ◽  
Bayesian Analyses ◽  
Ambiguous Information ◽  
First Order ◽  
Feature Negative

There is a revised version at https://osf.io/6haqn/ In the current investigation we classified participants as inhibitors or non-inhibitors depending on the extent to which they showed conditioned inhibition in a context that had been used for extinction of a conditioned response. This classification enabled us to predict participant responses in a second experiment which used a different design and a different experimental task. Our results were repeated in two replications and supported by Bayesian analyses. In the second experiment a feature-negative discrimination survived reversal training of the feature to a greater extent in the non-inhibitors than in the inhibitors. We propose that the fundamental distinction between inhibitors and non-inhibitors is based on a tendency to utilise first-order (direct associations) or second-order (occasion-setting) strategies when faced with ambiguous information and that this classification is a stable individual differences attribute.

scholarly journals PreprintGlautierBrudan2019OSIDRevised

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Glautier ◽  
Ovidiu Brudan
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Response ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Reversal Training ◽  
Current Investigation ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
Occasion Setting ◽  
Bayesian Analyses ◽  
Ambiguous Information ◽  
First Order ◽  
Feature Negative

In the current investigation we classified participants as inhibitors or non-inhibitors depending on the extent to which they showed conditioned inhibition in a context that had been used for extinction of a conditioned response. This classification enabled us to predict participant responses in a second experiment which used a different design and a different experimental task. In the second experiment a feature-negative discrimination survived reversal training of the feature to a greater extent in the non-inhibitors than in the inhibitors and this result was supported by Bayesian analyses. We propose that the fundamental distinction between inhibitors and non-inhibitors is based on a tendency to utilise first-order (direct associations) or second-order (occasion-setting) strategies when faced with ambiguous information and that this classification is a stable individual differences attribute. (138 words)

Individual differences in causal structures inferred during feature negative learning

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-165
Author(s):  
Jessica C Lee ◽  
Peter F Lovibond
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Causal Structure ◽  
Causal Learning ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Learning Theories ◽  
Small Subset ◽  
Occasion Setting ◽  
Feature Negative ◽  
Negative Training

Traditional associative learning theories predict that training with feature negative (A+/AB-) contingencies leads to the feature B acquiring negative associative strength and becoming a conditioned inhibitor (i.e., prevention learning). However, feature negative training can sometimes result in negative occasion setting, where B modulates the effect of A. Other studies suggest that participants learn about configurations of cues rather than their individual elements. In this study, we administered simultaneous feature negative training to participants in an allergist causal learning task and tested whether evidence for these three types of learning (prevention, modulation, configural) could be captured via self-report in the absence of any procedural manipulation. Across two experiments, we show that only a small subset of participants endorse the prevention option, suggesting that traditional associative models that predict conditioned inhibition do not completely capture how humans learn about negative contingencies. We also show that the degree of transfer in a summation test corresponds to the implied causal structure underlying conditioned inhibition, occasion-setting, and configural learning, and that participants are only partially sensitive to explicit hints about causal structure. We conclude that feature negative training is an ambiguous causal scenario that reveals individual differences in the representation of inhibitory associations, potentially explaining the modest group-level inhibitory effects often found in humans.

EXPRESS: Inhibitory causal structures in serial and simultaneous feature negative learning

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110222
Author(s):  
Peter F. Lovibond ◽  
Jessica C. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Bayes Factor ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Causal Structure ◽  
Training Transfer ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Summation Test ◽  
Occasion Setting ◽  
Simultaneous Training ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
Feature Negative

We have previously reported that human participants trained with a simultaneous feature negative discrimination (intermixed A+ / AB- trials) show only modest transfer of inhibitory properties of the feature B to a separately trained excitor in a summation test (Lee & Lovibond, 2021). Self-reported causal structure suggested that many participants learned that the effect of the feature B was somewhat specific to the excitor it had been trained with (modulation), rather than learning that the feature prevented the outcome (prevention). This pattern is reminiscent of the distinction between negative occasion-setting and conditioned inhibition in the animal conditioning literature. However, in animals, occasion-setting is more commonly seen with a serial procedure in which the feature (B) precedes the training excitor (A). Accordingly, we ran three experiments to compare serial with simultaneous training in an allergist causal judgment task. Transfer in a summation test was stronger to a previously modulated test excitor compared to a simple excitor after both simultaneous and serial training. There was a numerical trend towards a larger effect in the serial group, but it failed to reach significance and the Bayes Factor indicated support for the null. Serial training had no differential effect on self-reported causal structure, and did not significantly reduce overall transfer. After both simultaneous and serial training, transfer was strongest in participants who reported a prevention structure, replicating and extending our previous results to a previously modulated excitor. These results suggest that serial feature negative training does not promote a qualitatively different inhibitory causal structure compared to simultaneous training in humans.

It’s the Situation and Your Disposition: A Test of Two Honesty Hypotheses

2020 ◽  
pp. 194855061989897 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Markowitz ◽  
Timothy R. Levine
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Dark Triad ◽  
Current Experiment ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
Personality Dimensions ◽  
Situational Influences ◽  
Public Data

Research has documented substantial individual differences in the proclivity for honesty or dishonesty and that personality traits meaningfully account for variations in honesty–dishonesty. Research also shows important situational variation related to deception, as situations can motivate or discourage dishonest behaviors. The current experiment examines personality and situational influences on honesty–dishonesty in tandem, arguing that their effects may not be additive. Participants ( N = 114) engaged in an experimental task providing the opportunity to cheat for tangible gain. The situation varied to encourage or discourage cheating. Participants completed the HEXACO-100 and the Dark Triad of Personality scales. Both situational variation and personality dimensions predicted honesty–dishonesty, but the effects of personality were not uniform across situations. These results were also supported using public data from an independent, multilab sample ( N = 5,757). We outline how these results inform our understanding of deception, situational influences, and the role of disposition in honesty.

Locus of Control as a Personality and Situational Variable

1968 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Mc Donald ◽  
Vincent J. Tempone ◽  
William L. Simmons
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Locus Of Control ◽  
Experimental Manipulation ◽  
Experimental Task ◽  
Personality Variable ◽  
Skilled Performance ◽  
Situational Variable ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Made In

Previous studies of the personality variable, locus of control (LC), have focused on the relationship between LC and chance versus skilled performance. This study examined the interaction between LC and an experimental task which elicited in Ss differential levels of control as a subjectively felt state. The experimental task consisted in driving an automobile simulator in such a way that S felt he had maximum or little control over the number of errors he made in his driving performance on subsequent trials. S's performance on the simulator and his own evaluation of that performance were studied in relation to the amount of control experienced and individual differences in LC assessed by a forced-choice questionnaire. Although experimental manipulation of control had significant effects on performance, there was no significant interaction with this main effect and individual differences in LC.

Individual differences in encoded semantic representations- PREPRINT

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine L Alfred ◽  
Megan E Hillis ◽  
David J. M. Kraemer
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
General Relation ◽  
Semantic Distance ◽  
Semantic Representations ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Relations ◽  
Semantic Concepts ◽  
Presentation Formats ◽  
Neural Mapping ◽  
Different Content

Semantic concepts relate to each other to varying degrees to form a network of first-order relations, and these first-order relations serve as input into networks of general relation types as well as higher order relations. Previous work has studied the neural mapping of semantic concepts across domains, though much work remains to be done to understand how the localization and structure of those architectures differ depending on various individual differences in attentional bias towards different content presentation formats. Using an item-wise model of semantic distance of first-order relations (word2vec) between stimuli (presented both in word and picture forms), we used representational similarity analysis to identify individual differences in the neural localization of semantic concepts, and how those localization differences can be predicted by individual variance in the degree to which individuals attend to word information instead of pictures. Importantly, there were no reliable representations of this first-order semantic relational network when looking at the full group, and it was only through considering individual differences that a stable localization difference became evident. These results indicate that individual differences in the degree to which a person habitually attends to word information instead of picture information substantially affects the neural localization of first-order semantic representations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document