2016
DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2016.1250724
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extinction of likes and dislikes: effects of feature-specific attention allocation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Alternatively, procedures that draw participants' attention away from evaluative information may facilitate extinction of ECacquired response. Specifically, Vanaelst, Spruyt, Everaert, and De Houwer (2017) recently observed partial extinction of EC effects when participants were led to focus their attention away from evaluative information of the CSs during extinction training. Hence, whereas orienting attention on valence may facilitate the acquisition of conditioned response (Gast & Rothermund, 2011), drawing attention away from it may facilitate extinction (Vanaelst et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, procedures that draw participants' attention away from evaluative information may facilitate extinction of ECacquired response. Specifically, Vanaelst, Spruyt, Everaert, and De Houwer (2017) recently observed partial extinction of EC effects when participants were led to focus their attention away from evaluative information of the CSs during extinction training. Hence, whereas orienting attention on valence may facilitate the acquisition of conditioned response (Gast & Rothermund, 2011), drawing attention away from it may facilitate extinction (Vanaelst et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the degree of attention that is assigned to certain features of a stimulus is goal-driven (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002;Hopfinger, Buonocore & Mangun, 2000;Mazzietti, Sellem & Koenig, 2014;Yantis, 2000), it can be inferred that depending on their goals, consumers may direct their attention to varying attribute features of a product. Importantly, recent research consistently finds that automatic appraisals are crucially dependent on such top-down attentional control (e.g., Spruyt, Tibboel, De Schryver, & De Houwer, 2018;Vanaelst, Spruyt, Everaert, & De Houwer, 2016). In other words, the more attention is assigned to one stimulus attribute, the higher is the likelihood it will be processed under automaticity conditions (Everaert, Spruyt, & De Houwer, 2013;Spruyt, De Houwer, Everaert, & Hermans, 2012;Spruyt, Tibboel, De Schryver, & De Houwer, 2018).…”
Section: Measuring Automatic Stimulus Appraisals At the Attribute Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The balance between the stability of the estimate and the effort required from the participant can therefore be more delicate in the AMP as compared to other implicit measures. Of course, one may note that the total number of AMP trials is typically well above 50 [ 10 ], but some authors did report that the total number of AMP trials can be as small as 18 (see [ 10 ], p. 682) or even 16 [ 11 , 12 ]. Moreover, for some research questions, it may be essential to compute AMP scores for specific stimuli rather than stimulus categories.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%