How Does Not Responding to Appetitive Stimuli Cause Devaluation: Evaluative Conditioning or Response Inhibition?

DOI

In a series of 6 experiments, we examined how not responding to appetitive stimuli causes devaluation. To examine this question, a go/no-go task was employed in which appetitive stimuli were consistently associated with cues to respond (go stimuli), or with cues to not respond (either no-go cues or the absence of cues; no-go stimuli). Change in evaluation of go and no-go stimuli was compared to stimuli not presented in the task (untrained stimuli). Overall, the results suggest that devaluation of appetitive stimuli by not responding to them is the result of response inhibition.In these experiments we recruited a total of 272 participants via the Sona participation system at Radboud University. The experiments were conducted from November 2014 to September 2015.The dataset contains all the measurements from these 6 experiments. The analyses were conducted with SPSS 23.

Identifier
DOI https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xfv-at9w
Metadata Access https://ssh.datastations.nl/oai?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_datacite&identifier=doi:10.17026/dans-xfv-at9w
Provenance
Creator Z. Chen; H.P. Veling; A.J. Dijksterhuis; R.W. Holland
Publisher DANS Data Station Social Sciences and Humanities
Contributor RU Radboud University
Publication Year 2016
Rights CC BY 4.0; info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
OpenAccess true
Contact RU Radboud University
Representation
Resource Type Dataset
Format application/pdf; application/x-spss-por; application/x-spss-sav; application/x-spss-syntax; application/zip
Size 193487; 7052; 9123; 6970; 8625; 6396; 7561; 5412; 6650; 5576; 6730; 5740; 7589; 7708; 8554; 11644; 8597; 7165; 6752; 7461; 8725; 9240; 27398
Version 2.0
Discipline Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, Aquaculture; Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, Aquaculture and Veterinary Medicine; Life Sciences; Social Sciences; Social and Behavioural Sciences; Soil Sciences