Literature DB >> 22022896

The affective consequences of cognitive inhibition: devaluation or neutralization?

Alexandra Frischen1, Anne E Ferrey, Dustin H R Burt, Meghan Pistchik, Mark J Fenske.   

Abstract

Affective evaluations of previously ignored visual stimuli are more negative than those of novel items or prior targets of attention or response. This has been taken as evidence that inhibition has negative affective consequences. But inhibition could act instead to attenuate or "neutralize" preexisting affective salience, predicting opposite effects for stimuli that were initially positive or negative in valence. We tested this hypothesis by presenting trustworthy and untrustworthy faces (Experiment 1), strongly positive and negative photographs (Experiment 2), and monetary gain- and loss-associated patterns (Experiment 3) in a Go/No-Go task and assessing subsequent affective ratings. Evaluations of prior No-Go (inhibited) stimuli were more negative than of prior Go (noninhibited) stimuli, regardless of a priori affective valence. Ratings of No-Go stimuli also became increasingly negative (vs. increasingly neutral) when preexisting salience was increased via stimulus repetition (Experiment 4). Our results suggest inhibition leads to affective devaluation, not affective neutralization.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22022896     DOI: 10.1037/a0025981

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  16 in total

1.  Less approach, more avoidance: Response inhibition has motivational consequences for sexual stimuli that reflect changes in affective value not a lingering global brake on behavior.

Authors:  Rachel L Driscoll; Keelia Quinn de Launay; Mark J Fenske
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

Review 2.  Conflict monitoring and the affective-signaling hypothesis-An integrative review.

Authors:  David Dignath; Andreas B Eder; Marco Steinhauser; Andrea Kiesel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

3.  Suppressing a motivationally-triggered action tendency engages a response control mechanism that prevents future provocation.

Authors:  Scott M Freeman; Dominic Alvernaz; Alexandra Tonnesen; David Linderman; Adam R Aron
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 4.  Reward devaluation: Dot-probe meta-analytic evidence of avoidance of positive information in depressed persons.

Authors:  E Samuel Winer; Taban Salem
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  Hot or not: response inhibition reduces the hedonic value and motivational incentive of sexual stimuli.

Authors:  Anne E Ferrey; Alexandra Frischen; Mark J Fenske
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-12-26

Review 6.  Fluctuating disinhibition: implications for the understanding and treatment of alcohol and other substance use disorders.

Authors:  Andrew Jones; Paul Christiansen; Chantal Nederkoorn; Katrijn Houben; Matt Field
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 4.157

7.  Stimulus-category competition, inhibition, and affective devaluation: a novel account of the uncanny valley.

Authors:  Anne E Ferrey; Tyler J Burleigh; Mark J Fenske
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-03-13

8.  Stop signals decrease choices for palatable foods through decreased food evaluation.

Authors:  Harm Veling; Henk Aarts; Wolfgang Stroebe
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-11-26

9.  Errors affect hypothetical intertemporal food choice in women.

Authors:  Manuela Sellitto; Giuseppe di Pellegrino
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Stimulus devaluation induced by action stopping is greater for explicit value representations.

Authors:  Jan R Wessel; Alexandra L Tonnesen; Adam R Aron
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-10-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.