Attachment styles have a modulatory impact on psychophysiological arousal evoked by reciprocated and unreciprocated gaze.

Gaze processing plays an essential role during social interactions. Here, it was investigated whether variations in attachment style (secure, anxious and avoidant) were associated with differential expressions of sympathetic autonomic arousal upon live dyadic gaze interactions. To do so, 47 participants were presented with either reciprocated or unreciprocated eye gaze from a live model and skin conductance responses (SCRs) were collected. In line with previous observations, SCRs and subjective ratings of arousal were higher in response to reciprocated, compared to unreciprocated gaze. In terms of the modulation by attachment style, it was shown that participants with low attachment security and high attachment avoidance displayed overall higher sympathetic arousal upon the presentation of the live dyadic gaze cues, irrespective of whether the observed model showed reciprocal or unreciprocated gaze. Together, these observations indicate that attachment styles have a modulatory effect on individuals' psychophysiological responses to dyadic gaze interactions.

Failures to replicate blocking are surprising and informative-Reply to Soto (2018).

The blocking effect has inspired numerous associative learning theories and is widely cited in the literature. We recently reported a series of 15 experiments that failed to obtain a blocking effect in rodents. On the basis of those consistent failures, we claimed that there is a lack of insight into the boundary conditions for blocking. In his commentary, Soto (2018) argued that contemporary associative learning theory does provide a specific boundary condition for the occurrence of blocking, namely the use of same- versus different-modality stimuli. Given that in 10 of our 15 experiments same-modality stimuli were used, he claims that our failure to observe a blocking effect is unsurprising. We disagree with that claim, because of theoretical, empirical, and statistical problems with his analysis. We also address 2 other possible reasons for a lack of blocking that are referred to in Soto's (2018) analysis, related to generalization and salience, and dissect the potential importance of both. Although Soto's (2018) analyses raise a number of interesting points, we see more merit in an empirically guided analysis and call for empirical testing of boundary conditions on blocking. (PsycINFO Database Record

Individual Difference Factors in the Learning and Transfer of Patterning Discriminations.

In an associative patterning task, some people seem to focus more on learning an overarching rule, whereas others seem to focus on acquiring specific relations between the stimuli and outcomes involved. Building on earlier work, we further investigated which cognitive factors are involved in feature- vs. rule-based learning and generalization. To this end, we measured participants' tendency to generalize according to the rule of opposites after training on negative and positive patterning problems (i.e., A+/B+/AB- and C-/D-/CD+), their tendency to attend to global aspects or local details of stimuli, their systemizing disposition and their score on the Raven intelligence test. Our results suggest that while intelligence might have some influence on patterning learning and generalization, visual processing style and systemizing disposition do not. We discuss our findings in the light of previous observations on patterning.

The elusive nature of the blocking effect: 15 failures to replicate.

With the discovery of the blocking effect, learning theory took a huge leap forward, because blocking provided a crucial clue that surprise is what drives learning. This in turn stimulated the development of novel association-formation theories of learning. Eventually, the ability to explain blocking became nothing short of a touchstone for the validity of any theory of learning, including propositional and other nonassociative theories. The abundance of publications reporting a blocking effect and the importance attributed to it suggest that it is a robust phenomenon. Yet, in the current article we report 15 failures to observe a blocking effect despite the use of procedures that are highly similar or identical to those used in published studies. Those failures raise doubts regarding the canonical nature of the blocking effect and call for a reevaluation of the central status of blocking in theories of learning. They may also illustrate how publication bias influences our perspective toward the robustness and reliability of seemingly established effects in the psychological literature. (PsycINFO Database Record

Feature- versus rule-based generalization in rats, pigeons and humans.

Humans can spontaneously create rules that allow them to efficiently generalize what they have learned to novel situations. An enduring question is whether rule-based generalization is uniquely human or whether other animals can also abstract rules and apply them to novel situations. In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile claims that animals such as rats can learn rules. Most of those claims are quite weak because it is possible to demonstrate that simple associative systems (which do not learn rules) can account for the behavior in those tasks. Using a procedure that allows us to clearly distinguish feature-based from rule-based generalization (the Shanks-Darby procedure), we demonstrate that adult humans show rule-based generalization in this task, while generalization in rats and pigeons was based on featural overlap between stimuli. In brief, when learning that a stimulus made of two components ("AB") predicts a different outcome than its elements ("A" and "B"), people spontaneously abstract an opposites rule and apply it to new stimuli (e.g., knowing that "C" and "D" predict one outcome, they will predict that "CD" predicts the opposite outcome). Rats and pigeons show the reverse behavior-they generalize what they have learned, but on the basis of similarity (e.g., "CD" is similar to "C" and "D", so the same outcome is predicted for the compound stimulus as for the components). Genuinely rule-based behavior is observed in humans, but not in rats and pigeons, in the current procedure.