While it is important to learn what is good and bad, can people learn what is neither? The answer to this question is not readily apparent, but it has important implications for how people learn affective responses. Six experiments examined whether evaluative conditioning (EC) can instill neutral affect. They tested four hypotheses: EC, in which novel conditioned stimuli (CSs) are paired with neutral unconditioned stimuli (USs) (1) creates neutral affect, (2) forms stronger experiences of neutrality when the number of contingent (...) CS-US pairings is high rather than low, (3) creates positive affect, due to mere exposure, and (4) forms responses that are distinct from no US pairings. Respondents rated how positive, negative, and neutral they felt about a CS before and after an EC task in which CSs were paired with USs (positive, negative, neutral, or no stimuli). The positive/negative US conditions increased/decreased positivity, decreased/increased negativity, and decreased neutrality ratings, respectively. Supporting hypotheses 1, 2, and 4, the neutral US, but not the no US, condition increased neutral evaluations when respondents experienced a high (vs. low) number of CS-US pairings. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. The results reveal that people learn not only valenced, but also neutral, preferences. (shrink)

A standard approach to neutral value suggests that it can be understood in comparative terms by reference to value relations. I develop some objections to the standard approach based on assumptions about value facts being closely connected to fittingness facts. I then suggest that these objections give us reasons to amend the standard approach with a noncomparative understanding. The claim is that if an item has neutral value, then it is a fitting target of indifference, where this is understood not (...) as an absence of attitudes but a discrete type of reaction or evaluation. By leaning on some general insights from philosophical psychology about the evaluative role of indifference, I then attempt to give some hints as to how we might understand its nature. (shrink)

The undoing hypothesis proposes that positive emotions serve to undo sympathetic arousal related to negative emotions and stress. However, a recent qualitative review challenged the undoing effect by presenting conflicting results. To address this issue quantitatively, we conducted a meta-analytic review of 16 studies ( N = 1,220; 72 effect sizes) measuring sympathetic recovery during elicited positive emotions and neutral conditions. Findings indicated that in most cases, positive emotions did not speed sympathetic recovery compared to neutral conditions. However, when a (...) composite index of cardiovascular reactivity was used, undoing effects were evident. Our findings suggest the need for further work on the functions of positive emotions. (shrink)