In attribute conditioning (AC), neutral stimuli (CSs) acquire specific attributes through mere pairings with other stimuli possessing that attribute (USs). For example, if a neutral person “Neal” is paired with athletic “Wade,” participants judge Neal as more athletic compared with when Wade would be unathletic. Building on Evaluative Conditioning research, we introduced relational qualifiers between CS and US to probe the contribution of propositional processes to the AC effect. Concretely, CSs either liked or disliked USs. Four experiments (total n = 1,002) showed that these relations moderate AC effects for athleticism (“athletic” vs. “unathletic”; Experiments 1–3) and relationship status (“single” vs. “in a relationship”; Experiment 4); for example, when Neal disliked athletic Wade, he was judged as unathletic. We discuss how these findings constrain process theories of AC.
AlvesH.HögdenF.GastA.AustF.UnkelbachC. (2020). Attitudes from mere co-occurrences are guided by differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000193
2.
AlvesH.KochA.UnkelbachC. (2016). My friends are all alike—The relation between liking and perceived similarity in person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.011
3.
AustF.DiedenhofenB.UllrichS.MuschJ. (2013). Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 527–535. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2
4.
BaeyensF.EelenP.CrombezG.van den BerghO. (1992). Human evaluative conditioning: Acquisition trials, presentation schedule, evaluative style and contingency awareness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(92)90136-5
5.
BerscheidE. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 413–484). Random House.
6.
FiedlerK.UnkelbachC. (2011). Evaluative conditioning depends on higher order encoding processes. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.513497
7.
FördererS.UnkelbachC. (2011). Beyond evaluative conditioning! Evidence for transfer of non-evaluative attributes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611398413
8.
FördererS.UnkelbachC. (2012). Hating the cute kitten or loving the aggressive pit-bull: EC effects depend on CS–US relations. Cognition and Emotion, 26, 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.588687
9.
FördererS.UnkelbachC. (2014). The moderating role of attribute accessibility in conditioning multiple specific attributes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1994
10.
FördererS.UnkelbachC. (2015). Attribute conditioning: Changing attribute-assessments through mere pairings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.939667
11.
FördererS.UnkelbachC. (2016). Changing US attributes after CS-US pairings changes CS-attribute-assessments: Evidence for CS-US associations in attribute conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215626705
12.
GastA.GawronskiB.De HouwerJ. (2012). Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions. Learning and Motivation, 43, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2012.06.004
13.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2011). The associative-propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 59–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00002-0
14.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2018). Evaluative conditioning from the perspective of the associative-propositional evaluation model. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(3), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i3.28024
15.
GawronskiB.WaltherE. (2008). The TAR effect: When the ones who dislike become the ones who are disliked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1276–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318952
16.
GawronskiB.WaltherE.BlankH. (2005). Cognitive consistency and the formation of interpersonal attitudes: Cognitive balance affects the encoding of social information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.005
17.
GräfM.UnkelbachC. (2016). Halo effects in trait assessment depend on information valence: Why being honest makes you industrious, but lying does not make you lazy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215627137
18.
HeyckeT.GawronskiB. (2020). Co-occurrence and relational information in evaluative learning: A multinomial modeling approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000620
19.
HuX.GawronskiB.BalasR. (2017). Propositional versus dual-process accounts of evaluative conditioning: I. The effects of co-occurrence and relational information on implicit and explicit evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216673351
20.
HughesS.De HouwerJ.Barnes-HolmesD. (2016). The moderating impact of distal regularities on the effect of stimulus pairings: A novel perspective on evaluative conditioning. Experimental Psychology, 63, 20–44. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000310
21.
ImhoffR.SchmidtA. F.BernhardtJ.DierksmeierA.BanseR. (2011). An inkblot for sexual preference: A semantic variant of the Affect Misattribution Procedure. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.508260
22.
KimJ.AllenC. T.KardesF. R. (1996). An investigation of the mediational mechanisms underlying attitudinal conditioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379603300306
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
25.
MitchellC. J.De HouwerJ.LovibondP. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000855
MoranT.Bar-AnanY. (2020). The effect of co-occurrence and relational information on speeded evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 34, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1604321
28.
MoranT.Bar-AnanY.NosekB. A. (2015). Processing goals moderate the effect of co-occurrence on automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.05.009
29.
NakagawaS.SchielzethH. (2017). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
30.
NieuwenhuisS.ForstmannB. U.WagenmakersE. J. (2011). Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1105–1107. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2886
31.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
32.
OlsonM. A.KendrickR. V.FazioR. H. (2009). Implicit learning of evaluative vs. non-evaluative covariations: The role of dimension accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.007
33.
PayneB. K.ChengC. M.GovorunO.StewartB. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277
34.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
RosnowR. L.RosenthalR. (1995). “Some things you learn aren’t so”: Cohen’s paradox, Asch’s paradigm, and the interpretation of interaction. Psychological Science, 6, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00297.x
37.
StaatsC. K.StaatsA. W. (1957). Meaning established by classical conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047716
38.
StahlC.UnkelbachC. (2009). Evaluative learning with single versus multiple unconditioned stimuli: The role of contingency awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35, 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013255
UnkelbachC.HögdenF. (2019). Why does George Clooney make coffee sexy? The case for attribute conditioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 540–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419859354
42.
WaltherE.GawronskiB.BlankH.LangerT. (2009). Changing likes and dislikes through the back door: The US-revaluation effect. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 889–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802212423
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
