ブックタイトル明星大学 心理学年報 第32号

概要

明星大学 心理学年報 第32号

10明星大学心理学年報2014年第32号seriously limited. To examine this possibility, thisexperiment assigned different filler pictures for twogroups of participants, while target pictures werefixed across the two groups. If the attitude scoresfor the two groups did not differ between groups,the robustness of the SECT would be positivelydemonstrated.MethodParticipants. As a part of an experimental psychologylaboratory course, 52 Japanese universitystudents (22 men, 30 women, average age＝20.01years, age range:19-22)participated in the experiment.Half of the participants were selected randomlyandassigned to Group A,and the remainderassigned to Group B.Materials. The three target pictures used wereidentical to those in Experiment 1.For participantsin Group A, four filler pictures were used, as inExperiment 1. For participants in Group B, twoemotionally positive and two emotionally negativepictures were selected as new filler pictures fromthe IAPS (Lang et al.,2005;Appendix).Procedure.Fiveto seven students participated atthesametimeand in thesamelaboratoryas participantsin Experiment 1. Participants completed theSECT procedure and rated the pleasantness ofseven pictures as in Experiment 1.Theentireexperimentalprocedure took approximately 20 minutes.ResultsTwo participants demonstrated erroneousresponses of more than 20% on all trials wereeliminated from analysis.Erroneous responses wereexcluded from the analysis (7.43% of all observations).Additionally, responses that showed shortlatencies ofbelow 300ms and long latencies ofover1500 ms were excluded as outliers (2.53% of allobservations). Table 5 shows the mean responselatency and number of errors for each of the sixmain blocks. For each participant, three attitudescores pertaining to three target pictures wereobtained by subtracting the mean response latencyfor the positive block from the mean responselatency for the negative block, as in the previousexperiment (Table 5). Magnitude relationships forthe three attitude scores obtained for both groupswerematched with theoriginal valenceofthethreetarget pictures. To investigate attitude scores, a 2(group:A,B)×3(original valenceoftarget picture:positive, negative, neutral) mixed design ANOVAwas conducted with attitudescoreas thedependentvariable.The group variable was the between-subjectsfactor and the original valence of target pictureswas the within-subjects factor. Resultsrevealed that therewas no significant maineffect ofgroup or first-order interaction effect (F(1, 48)＝0.75,n.s,η?＝.01;F(2,96)＝.01,n.s,η?＝.00).Thelackof significance of these effects indicates that alter-Table 5Average Response Latencies (ms),Number of Errors, and Attitude Scores for SECT in Experiment 2GroupA(n＝25)B(n＝25)Block123456123456Original valenceoftargetConverted valenceof targetPositivePositiveNegativeNeutralPositiveNegativeNegativePositiveNegativePositivePositiveNegativeNeutralPositiveNegativeNegativePositiveNegativeResponselatency696 (92)761(112)719 (94)722(112)783(109)713 (90)722(107)801 (91)723(113)744(114)765(120)710(107)Number oferrors2.56(2.04)2.60(1.78)3.76(2.68)2.76(2.17)3.84(2.32)2.32(2.38)3.88(2.11)3.64(2.98)3.48(2.71)3.28(1.84)3.64(2.23)3.04(1.79)Note. Attitude score represents the difference in average response latencies between two blocks.Digits in parentheses are standard deviations.Attitude score fortarget653-707920-55