Individual differences in learning the affective value of others under minimal conditions

Abstract

This paper provides the first demonstration that people can learn about the positive and negative value of other people (e.g., neutral faces) under minimal learning conditions, with stable individual differences in this learning. In four studies, participants viewed neutral faces paired with sentences describing positive, negative or neutral behaviors on either two (Study 1) or four (Studies 2, 3, and 4) occasions. Participants were later asked to judge the valence of the faces alone. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that learning does occur under minimal conditions. Study 3 and 4 further demonstrated that the degree of learning was moderated by Extraversion. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that initial learning persisted over a period of 2 days. Implications for affective processing and person perception are discussed.

Figure 1

Pretest judgments of faces: Study 1. Columns with asterisks are different from chance. Means were compared to chance level responding (i.e., .33 or 33%) using a two-tailed 1-sample t test, p < .05. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 2

Mean percentage of categorizations based on valence of behavioral act with which face was paired: Study 1. Columns with asterisks are different from chance. Means were compared to chance level responding (i.e., .33 or 33%) using a two-tailed 1-sample t test, p < .05. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 3

Mean percentage of accurate categorizations based on social content of behavioral act with which face was paired: Study 1. The data in this figure represents only trials on which participant categorized the face stimuli according to the valence of the sentence with which each stimulus was paired during learning. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 4

Mean percentage of categorizations based on valence of behavioral act with which face was paired: Study 2. Columns with asterisks are different from chance. Means were compared to chance level responding (i.e., .33 or 33%) using a two-tailed 1-sample t test, p < .05. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 5

Mean percentage of accurate categorizations based on social content of behavioral act with which face was paired: Study 2. The data in this figure represents only trials on which participant categorized the face stimuli according to the valence of the sentence with which each stimulus was paired during learning. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 6

Mean percentage of categorizations based on valence of behavioral act with which face was paired: Study 3. Columns with asterisks are different from chance. Means were compared to chance level responding (i.e., .33 or 33%) using a two-tailed 1-sample t test, p < .05. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 7

Mean percentage of categorizations immediately following learning based on valence of behavioral act with which face was paired: Study 4. Columns with asterisks are different from chance. Means were compared to chance level responding (i.e., .33 or 33%) using a two-tailed 1-sample t test, p < .05. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 8

Mean percentage of categorizations two days after learning based on valence of behavioral act with which face was paired: Study 4. Columns with asterisks are different from chance. Means were compared to chance level responding (i.e., .33 or 33%) using a two-tailed 1-sample t test, p < .05. Error bars represent standard errors.