Research in Coherence: Pitfalls, Developments, and Suggestions Sam - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Jan 21, 2024 429 likes •1.02k views

Research in Coherence: Pitfalls, Developments, and Suggestions Sam Ashcroft, Lee Hulbert-Williams, Kevin Hochard & Nick Hulbert-Williams University of Chester Introduction Cognitive Dissonance Theory The holding of two or more

SLIDE 1

Research in Coherence: Pitfalls, Developments, and Suggestions

Sam Ashcroft, Lee Hulbert-Williams, Kevin Hochard & Nick Hulbert-Williams University of Chester

SLIDE 2

Introduction

SLIDE 3

Cooper, 2007; p.7

“The holding of two or more inconsistent cognitions arouses the state of cognitive dissonance, which is experienced as uncomfortable tension. This tension has drive-like properties and must be reduced.“

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

SLIDE 4

Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond & O’Hara, 2001; p. 70

“coherence or sense-making appears to function as a powerful reinforcer for relational activity”

Relational Frame Theory

SLIDE 5

Hayes et al., 2001; p. 48

“…once established, coherence and sense-making will serve as a continuously available reinforcer for derived relational responding”

Relational Frame Theory

SLIDE 6

Nodes/Stimuli Directly Trained ‘Equals’ Relationships

A B C

Combinatorial Entailment

SLIDE 7

Nodes/Stimuli Directly Trained ‘Unidirectional’ Relationships

A B C

Combinatorial Entailment

SLIDE 8

Nodes/Stimuli Directly Trained ‘Unidirectional’ Relationships

A B C

Ambiguous Relationship

SLIDE 9

Quinones and Hayes (2014)

On ambiguous A-C test trials, participants responded systematically as though A>C or A<C

Directly Trained ‘Unidirectional’ Relationships

A B C

SLIDE 10

Quinones and Hayes (2014)

On ambiguous A-C test trials, participants responded systematically as though A>C or A<C

Directly Trained ‘Unidirectional’ Relationships

A B C

SLIDE 11

Study One

SLIDE 12

Why run a study?

Quinones and Hayes (2014)

Small sample
No inferential statistics
No additional measures (such as affect)

SLIDE 13

####- Discriminative Stimulus

ZKR CDO

Stimulus A Stimulus B

SLIDE 14

$$$$- Discriminative Stimulus

ZKR CDO

Stimulus A Stimulus B

SLIDE 15

The networks trained

Three Coherent: A>B>C Three ‘Ambiguous A-C’: A>B<C

SLIDE 16

Block - Stages - Trials -

Training Stage Test Stage

Experiment-

SLIDE 17

The participants for Study One

N = 80 65 Females Aged 18 to 58 (M=21.71, SD=5.55)

SLIDE 18

Cutoff

48 is the max score

SLIDE 19

Close to 24 means strong, consistent A>C or A<C responding

SLIDE 20

Variable Ambiguous Mean (Standard Deviation) Coherent Mean (Standard Deviation) p Generalized Eta Squared

Reaction times

n test trials

1.29 (0.25) 1.15 (0.25) 5.99e-07* 0.383 Affect

0.31 (1.02)

0.27 (1.05) .0007* 0.200 Arousal 4.01 (1.83) 4.03 (1.64) .886 0.0004 Sense-Making 4.82 (1.61) 6.41 (1.65) 3.023-e08* 0.448

Small, medium and large GES would be 0.02, 0.13 and 0.26 resp spective vely y (Bake keman, 2005, p , 2005, p383) 383).

SLIDE 21

Relationship trained Screens Discriminative Stimuli Correct A>B Bigger A B Bigger A, B A Smaller A B Smaller A, B B B>C Bigger B C Bigger B, C B Smaller B C Smaller B, C C

Design seems sound

SLIDE 22

Stimulus Times on Screen (OS) Times Correct (C) Reinforcement Ratio (OS / C) A 2 1 50% B 4 2 50% C 2 1 50% And yet, there is an alternative hypothesis…

SLIDE 23

Alternative Hypothesis (and resolution)

SLIDE 24

Bigger

A B

SLIDE 25

Smaller

B C

SLIDE 26

A C

SLIDE 27

But remember

This is only an issue for coherent A>B>C networks This means that on coherent A>B>C networks, the ‘combinatorial entailment’ effect may actually be simple ‘pairing’ of stimuli and discriminatives Then I realised that this issue isn’t only inherent in my design, but in that of Quinones and Hayes (2014) and any other study using a unidirectional A>B>C format

SLIDE 28

SLIDE 29

SLIDE 39

A C

SLIDE 40

A B A C 3 Stim 5 Stim

SLIDE 41

Stimulus Times on Screen (OS) Times Correct (C) Reinforcement Ratio (OS / C) Paired with Discriminative X 2 1 50% Bigger A 4 2 50% Smaller, Bigger B 4 2 50% Smaller, Bigger C 4 2 50% Smaller, Bigger Y 2 1 50% Smaller

SLIDE 42

Study Two

SLIDE 43

####- Discriminative Stimulus

ZKR CDO

Stimulus A Stimulus B

Second Experiment

SLIDE 44

Block - Stages - Trials -

Training Stage Test Stage

Experiment-

SLIDE 45

The participants for Study Two

N = 75 59 Females Aged 18 to 45 (M=20.83, SD=4.39)

SLIDE 46

Five nodes, and ONE discriminative

Having five nodes and two discriminatives is near impossible to learn So, I dropped to one discriminative (i.e.“Bigger” is always the relationship) All the tables and ratios and ‘pairing circles’ are completely balanced This did something important which I will talk about if there is time

SLIDE 47

Close to 4 means strong, consistent A>C or A<C responding

SLIDE 48

Why do participants now not ‘make their own coherence’?

Experiment One A C Smaller Bigger Experiment Two A C Bigger Y Q

SLIDE 49

Cutoff

Max score is 8

SLIDE 50

Variable Ambiguous Mean (SD) Coherent Mean (SD) p GES Reaction Time 1.47 (0.54) 1.42 (0.47) .283 0.030 Affect

0.11 (1.10)
0.03 (1.19)

.418 0.017 Arousal 3.61 (1.84) 3.77 (1.52) .310 0.027 Sense-Making 3.84 (1.88) 3.92 (1.61) .527 0.011

SLIDE 51

SLIDE 52

SLIDE 53

3 Stimulus 5 Stimulus p GES p GES Reaction Time A-C Trials 5.99e-07*, 0.383 .283 0.030 Affect .0007*, 0.200 .418 0.017 Arousal .886, 0.0004 .310 0.027 Sense-Making 3.023-e08*, 0.448 .527 0.011

SLIDE 54

Ambiguous A-C Test Trials 3 Stimulus 5 Stimulus Strong A>C or A<C responding Weak A>C or A<C responding Coherent A-C Test Trials 3 Stimulus 5 Stimulus High correctness (ceiling?) Reasonable correctness

Confidence is through the roof?

SLIDE 55

Take home messages

Be wary of results from unidirectional A>B>C experiments, they may be inflated Five-stimulus X>A>B>C>Y networks resolve the inherent issue with A>B>C network designs Using one discriminative, and/or distractor stimuli in test stages seems to prevent artificial creation of ‘coherence’

SLIDE 56

Other Research within my PhD

Physiological measures for A-C trials may be sensitive enough to assess differences on block types (near complete) Add feedback to the test stage so that you can further manipulate coherence / ambiguity / incoherence (complete) Ask participants to choose block types to do again, assessing appetitiveness (complete) Future: real stimuli, vignettes

SLIDE 57

w: www.cbslab.uk | http://www.chester.ac.uk/psychology/cruph

For further information

Sam Ashcroft, PhD Student, Graduate Teaching Assistant

e: s.ashcroft@chester.ac.uk LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/samashcroft

Please come and speak with me about any thoughts and feedback! That’s why I’m here!

GitHub Code: https://github.com/S-Ashcroft