Evaluative learning comprises changes in preferences after co-occurrences between conditioned stimuli (CSs) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) of affective value. Co-occurrences may involve relational responding. Two experiments examined the impact of arbitrary relational responding on evaluative preferences for hypothetical money and shock outcomes. In Experiment 1, participants were trained to make arbitrary relational responses by placing CSs of the same size but different colours into boxes and were then instructed that these CSs represented different intensities of hypothetical USs (money or shock). Liking ratings of the CSs were altered in accordance with the underlying bigger/smaller than relations. A reversal of preference was also observed: the CS associated with the smallest hypothetical shock was rated more positively than the CS associated with the smallest amount of hypothetical money. In Experiment 2, procedures from Relational Frame Theory (RFT) established a relational network of more than/less than relations consisting of five CSs (A-B-C-D-E). Overall, evaluative preferences were altered, but not reversed, depending on (a) how stimuli had been related to one another during the learning phase and (b) whether those stimuli referred to money or shocks. The contribution of RFT to evaluative learning research is discussed.
ArcedianoF., & MillerR. R. (2002). Some constraints for models of timing: A temporal coding hypothesis perspective. Learning and Motivation, 33, 105–123.
2.
BarnetR. C., & MillerR. R. (1996). Second-order excitation mediated by a backward conditioned inhibitor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 279–296.
3.
BradleyM. M., & LangP. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59.
4.
De HouwerJ. (2007). A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 230–241. Retrieved from http://www.ucm.es/info/psi/docs/journal/
5.
De HouwerJ. (2009). The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models. Learning & Behavior, 37, 1–20. doi:10.3758/LB.37.1.1
6.
De HouwerJ. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 202–209.
7.
De HouwerJ., GawronskiB., & Barnes-HolmesD. (2013). A functional-cognitive framework for attitude research. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 252–287.
8.
DymondS., & BarnesD. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163–184.
9.
DymondS., & RehfeldtR. (2000). Understanding complex behaviour: The transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254.
10.
DymondS., & RocheB. (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
11.
FielderK., & UnkelbachC. (2011). Evaluative conditioning depends on higher-order encoding processes. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 639–656.
12.
FienupD. M., CoveyD. P., & CritchfieldT. S. (2010). Teaching brain-behavior relations economically with stimulus equivalence technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 19–33.
13.
FrederickS., & MochonD. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 124–133.
14.
GastA., & De HouwerJ. (2012). Evaluative conditioning without directly experienced pairings of the conditioned and the unconditioned stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1657–1674. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.665061
15.
GastA., GawronskiB., & De HouwerJ. (2012). Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions. Learning & Motivation, 43, 79–88.
16.
GrossA. C., & FoxE. J. (2009). Relational frame theory: An overview of the controversy. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 87–98.
17.
HayesS. C. (1994). Content, context, and the types of psychological acceptance. In HayesS. C., JacobsonN. S., FolletteV. M., & DougherM. J. (Eds.), Acceptance and change: Content and context in psychotherapy (pp. 13–32). Reno, NV: Context Press.
18.
HayesS. C., Barnes-HolmesD., & RocheB. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum.
19.
HofmannW., De HouwerJ., PeruginiM., BaeyensF., & CrombezG. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390–421. doi:10.1037/a0018916
20.
HughesS., Barnes-HolmesD., & De HouwerJ. (2011). The dominance of associative theorising in implicit attitude research: Propositional and behavioral alternatives. Psychological Record, 61, 465–496.
21.
HughesS., De HouwerJ., & PeruginiM. (2016). Expanding the boundaries of evaluative learning research: How intersecting regularities shape our likes and dislikes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi:10.1037/xge0000100
22.
JonesC. R., OlsonM. A., & FazioR. H. (2010). Evaluative conditioning: The “how” question. In Advances in experimental social psychology vol. 43 (pp. 205–255). San Diego: Academic Press.
23.
KattnerF., EllermeierW., & TavakoliP. (2012). Both trace and delay conditioning of evaluative responses depend on contingency awareness. Learning and Motivation, 43, 35–47.
24.
LagnadoD. A., WaldmannM. R., HagmayerY., & SlomanS. A. (2007). Beyond covariation: Cues to causal structure. In GopnikA. & SchulzL. (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 154–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
LeveyA. B., & MartinI. (1975). Classical conditioning of human “evaluation” responses. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 13, 221–226.
26.
MelchersK. G., LachnitH., & ShanksD. R. (2004). Within-compound associations in retrospective revaluation and in direct learning: A challenge for comparator theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section B, 57, 25–53. doi:10.1080/02724990344000042
27.
MitchellC. J., De HouwerJ., & LovibondP. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183–198.
28.
MoletM., MacquetB., & CharleyG. (2013). Relational responding modulates and reverses affective ratings in evaluative conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 44, 137–142.
29.
MunnellyA., DymondS., & HintonE. C. (2010). Relational reasoning with derived comparative relations: A novel model of transitive inference. Behavioural Processes, 85, 8–17.
30.
MunnellyA., FreegardG., & DymondS. (2013). Constructing relational sentences: Establishing arbitrarily applicable comparative relations with the Relational Completion Procedure. The Psychological Record, 63, 751–768.
31.
PetersK. R., & GawronskiB. (2011). Are we puppets on a string? Comparing the impact of contingency and validity on implicit and explicit evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 557–569. doi:10.1177/0146167211400423
32.
ProctorR. W., & UrcuioliP. J. (2015). Functional relations and cognitive psychology: Lessons from human performance and animal research. International Journal of Psychology. doi:10.1002/ijop.12182
33.
ReillyT., WhelanR., & Barnes-HolmesD. (2005). The effect of training structure on the latency of responses to a five-term linear chain. The Psychological Record, 55, 233–249.
34.
StewartI. (2016). The fruits of a functional approach for psychological science. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 15–27. doi:10.1002/ijop.12184
35.
StewartI., BarrettK., McHughL., Barnes-HolmesD., & O'HoraD. (2013). Multiple contextual control over non-arbitrary relational responding and a preliminary model of pragmatic verbal analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 100, 174–186.
36.
StewartI., & McElweeJ. (2009). Relational responding and conditional discrimination procedures: An apparent inconsistency and clarification. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 309–317.
37.
WhelanR., Barnes-HolmesD., & DymondS. (2006). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of more-than and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 317–335.
38.
ZanonR., De HouwerJ., & GastA. (2012). Context effects in evaluative conditioning of implicit evaluations. Learning and Motivation, 43, 155–165. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2012.02.003
39.
ZanonR., De HouwerJ., GastA., & Tucker SmithC. (2014). When does relational information influence evaluative conditioning?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 2105–2122. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.907324
