How previous experience shapes future affective subjective ratings: A follow-up study investigating implicit learning and cue ambiguity

PLoS One. 2024 Feb 9;19(2):e0297954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297954. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

People use their previous experience to predict future affective events. Since we live in ever-changing environments, affective predictions must generalize from past contexts (from which they may be implicitly learned) to new, potentially ambiguous contexts. This study investigated how past (un)certain relationships influence subjective experience following new ambiguous cues, and whether past relationships can be learned implicitly. Two S1-S2 paradigms were employed as learning and test phases in two experiments. S1s were colored circles, S2s negative or neutral affective pictures. Participants (Experiment 1 N = 121, Experiment 2 N = 116) were assigned to the certain (CG) or uncertain group (UG), and they were presented with 100% (CG) or 50% (UG) S1-S2 congruency during an uninstructed (Experiment 1) or implicit (Experiment 2) learning phase. During the test phase both groups were presented with a new 75% S1-S2 paradigm, and ambiguous (Experiment 1) or unambiguous (Experiment 2) S1s. Participants were asked to rate the expected valence of upcoming S2s (expectancy ratings), or their experienced valence and arousal (valence and arousal ratings). In Experiment 1 ambiguous cues elicited less negative expectancy ratings, and less unpleasant valence ratings, independently of prior experience. In Experiment 2, both groups showed similar expectancies, predicting upcoming pictures' valence according to the 75% contingencies of the test phase. Overall, we found that in the presence of ambiguous cues subjective affective experience is dampened, and that implicit previous experience does not emerge at the subjective level by significantly shaping reported affective experience.

MeSH terms

  • Arousal*
  • Cues*
  • Emotions
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Uncertainty

Grants and funding

The study was supported by a grant from Ministero dell’Istruzione Università e Ricerca (MIUR) (Dipartimenti di Eccellenza DM 11/05/2017 n. 262) to the Department of General Psychology. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.