Affective learning in adults with intellectual disability: an experiment using evaluative conditioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluative conditioning is a form of affective learning in which initially neutral stimuli acquire an affective value through association with negative or positive stimuli. Recent research shows an important role for cognitive resources in this type of learning. This form of affective learning has rarely been studied in intellectual disability (ID). METHOD: We examined evaluative conditioning in 16 adults with mild to moderate ID compared to age- and gender-matched control participants. Neutral shapes and symbols were repeatedly paired with positive, neutral or negative unconditioned stimuli (faces or International Affective Picture System images). There was also an extinction phase. RESULTS: There was significant acquisition of conditioning in both groups. Stimuli paired with positive images were evaluated more positively, and stimuli paired with negative images were evaluated more negatively. Post-extinction ratings however show that these novel affective associations were not maintained by individuals with ID as much as by individuals in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that ID modulates some aspects of affective learning but not necessarily initial preference acquisition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".