The contribution of uncontrolled processes to evaluative learning has been examined in evaluative conditioning procedures by comparing evaluations of conditioned stimuli between tasks or within tasks but between learning instruction conditions. In the present research, we introduced a new procedure that keeps both tasks and instructions constant. In addition, we introduced ambivalence measures to address this uncontrollability question. The new procedure involves forming an impression of conditioned stimuli based on their pairing with one unconditioned stimulus while attending but discarding the influence of another unconditioned stimulus holding the same (congruent trials) versus a different (incongruent trials) valence. When the to-be-used and to-be-discarded unconditioned stimuli share the same (vs. a different) valence, controlled and uncontrolled processes should support the same (vs. opposite) responses. We used this approach in two preregistered experiments (Ntotal = 467) using dichotomous evaluative classifications (Experiments 1 and 2), evaluative ratings, and two measures of attitudinal ambivalence: mouse trajectories and felt ambivalence (Experiment 2). While we failed to find evidence for uncontrolled processes in evaluative classification frequencies separately in Experiments 1 and 2, analyses of aggregated classification frequencies across Experiments 1 and 2 suggested a small contribution of uncontrolled processes. In addition, we found larger felt ambivalence for incongruent than congruent trials. Overall, the present findings are mixed but support the possibility of a contribution of uncontrolled processes to evaluative learning, even when control is applied to a focal stimulus and additional influences come from a to-be-disregarded stimulus.
AndersonJ. R.BowerG. H. (1973). Human associative memory. Winston and Sons.
2.
AustF.DiedenhofenB.UllrichS.MuschJ. (2013). Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2
3.
BalasR.SweklejJ. (2012). Evaluative conditioning may occur with and without contingency awareness. Psychological Research, 76(3), 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0336-5
4.
BarghJ. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Basic processes; Applications (pp. 1–40). Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BatchelderW. H.RieferD. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03210812
6.
BénaJ.MaucletA.CorneilleO. (2023). Does co-occurrence information influence evaluations beyond relational meaning? An investigation using self-reported and mouse-tracking measures of attitudinal ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(4), 968–992. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001308
7.
BénaJ.MelnikoffD. E.MieropA.CorneilleO. (2022). Revisiting dissociation hypotheses with a structural fit approach: The case of the prepared reflex framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 100, 104297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104297
8.
Ben-ShacharM.LüdeckeD.MakowskiD. (2020). effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(56), 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815
9.
BergerK. T.HütterM.CorneilleO. (2019). Investigating attitudinal ambivalence via sequential priming: Evidence for the simultaneous and unintentional activation of opposite evaluations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(7), 1269–1297. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000572
BuchnerA.ErdfelderE.Vaterrodt-PlünneckeB. (1995). Toward unbiased measurement of conscious and unconscious memory processes within the process dissociation framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.137
12.
CalanchiniJ. (2020). How multinomial processing trees have advanced, and can continue to advance, research using implicit measures. Social Cognition, 38(Suppl.), s165–s186. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2020.38.supp.s165
13.
CalanchiniJ.RiversA. M.KlauerK. C.ShermanJ. W. (2018). Multinomial processing trees as theoretical bridges between cognitive and social psychology. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 69, 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2018.09.002
14.
ConnerM.ArmitageC. J. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence. In CranoW. D.PrislinR. (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261–286). Psychology Press.
15.
CorneilleO.MertensG. (2020). Behavioral and physiological evidence challenges the automatic acquisition of evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(6), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420964111
16.
CorneilleO.StahlC. (2019). Associative attitude learning: A closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318763261
17.
De HouwerJ. (2007). A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600006491
18.
De HouwerJ.ThomasS.BaeyensF. (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.853
19.
du PlessisC.D’HoogeS.SweldensS. (2023). The science of creating brand associations: A continuous trinity model linking brand associations to learning processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 51(1).
20.
ErdfelderE.AuerT.-S.HilbigB. E.AßfalgA.MoshagenM.NadarevicL. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models. Journal of Psychology, 217(3), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108
21.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
GawronskiB.BalasR.CreightonL. A. (2014). Can the formation of conditioned attitudes be intentionally controlled?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213513907
24.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
25.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2009). Operating principles versus operating conditions in the distinction between associative and propositional processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2), 207–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x09000958
26.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2018). Evaluative conditioning from the perspective of the associative-propositional evaluation model. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i3.28024
27.
GawronskiB.De HouwerJ.ShermanJ. W. (2020). Twenty-five years of research using implicit measures. Social Cognition, 38(Suppl.), s1–s25. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2020.38.supp.s1
28.
GawronskiB.MitchellD. G. V.BalasR. (2015). Is evaluative conditioning really uncontrollable? A comparative test of three emotion-focused strategies to prevent the acquisition of conditioned preferences. Emotion, 15(5), 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000078
29.
GawronskiB.WaltherE. (2012). What do memory data tell us about the role of contingency awareness in evaluative conditioning?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.002
HenningerF.ShevchenkoY.MertensU. K.KieslichP. J.HilbigB. E. (2021). Lab.js: A free, open, online study builder. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 556–573. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01283-5
32.
HeyckeT.GawronskiB. (2020). Co-occurrence and relational information in evaluative learning: A multinomial modeling approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(1), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000620
33.
HockleyW. E. (2022). Two dichotomies of recognition memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(3), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000289
34.
HofmannW.De HouwerJ.PeruginiM.BaeyensF.CrombezG. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018916
35.
HütterM. (2022). An integrative review of dual- and single-process accounts of evaluative conditioning. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 640–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00102-7
HütterM.SweldensS. (2018). Dissociating controllable and uncontrollable effects of affective stimuli on attitudes and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(2), 320–349. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx124
39.
HütterM.SweldensS.StahlC.UnkelbachC.KlauerK. C. (2012). Dissociating contingency awareness and conditioned attitudes: Evidence of contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141(3), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026477
40.
IngendahlM.VogelT. (2022). Stimulus evaluation in the eye of the beholder: Big Five personality traits explain variance in normed picture sets. Personality Science, 3, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7951
41.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(91)90025-f
42.
KlauerK. C.DittrichK.ScholtesC.VossA. (2015). The invariance assumption in process-dissociation models: An evaluation across three domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 198–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000044
43.
KlauerK. C.WegenerI. (1998). Unraveling social categorization in the “who said what?” paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1155–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1155
44.
KukkenN.HütterM.HollandR. W. (2020). Are there two independent evaluative conditioning effects in relational paradigms? Dissociating the effects of CS-US pairings and their meaning. Cognition and Emotion, 34(1), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1617112
45.
KurdiB.LozanoS.BanajiM. R. (2017). Introducing the open affective standardized image set (OASIS). Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0715-3
46.
LangeK.KühnS.FilevichE. (2015). Correction: “Just another tool for online studies” (JATOS): An easy solution for setup and management of web servers supporting online studies. PLOS ONE, 10(7), Article e0134073. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134073
MoranT. (2024). The effect of irrelevant pairings on evaluative responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 112, 104602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104602
MoshagenM. (2010). MultiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.42.1.42
54.
PayneB. K.BisharaA. J. (2009). An integrative review of process dissociation and related models in social cognition. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 272–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280903162177
55.
PayneB. K.BurkleyM. A.StokesM. B. (2008). Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.16
56.
PleyersG.CorneilleO.LuminetO.YzerbytV. (2007). Aware and (dis) liking: Item-based analyses reveal that valence acquisition via evaluative conditioning emerges only when there is contingency awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.130
57.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.71.3.431
58.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
59.
RescorlaR. A.HollandP. C. (1976). Some behavioral approaches to the study of learning. In RosenzweigM. R.BennettE. L. (Eds.), Neural mechanisms of learning and memory (pp. 165–192). MIT Press.
SchneiderI. K.MattesA. (2021). Mix is different from nix: Mouse tracking differentiates ambivalence from neutrality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104106. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wju87
SchneiderI. K.van HarreveldF.RotteveelM.TopolinskiS.van der PligtJ.SchwarzN.KooleS. L. (2015). The path of ambivalence: Tracing the pull of opposing evaluations using mouse trajectories. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00996
64.
SingmannH.BolkerB.WestfallJ.AustF.Ben-ShacharM. S. (2023). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments (R Package Version 1.2-1). https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=afex
65.
SingmannH.KellenD. (2013). MPTinR: Analysis of multinomial processing tree models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0259-0
66.
StahlC.AustF. (2018). Evaluative conditioning as memory-based judgment. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(3), Article e28589. https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i3.28589
67.
StahlC.BénaJ.AustF.MieropA.CorneilleO. (2024). A conditional judgment procedure for probing evaluative conditioning effects in the absence of feelings of remembering. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 1140–1163. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02081-w
68.
StahlC.UnkelbachC.CorneilleO. (2009). On the respective contributions of awareness of unconditioned stimulus valence and unconditioned stimulus identity in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016196
69.
SweldensS.CorneilleO.YzerbytV. (2014). The role of awareness in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314527832
70.
van HarreveldF.NohlenH. U.SchneiderI. K. (2015). The ABC of ambivalence: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 285–324.
71.
WaroquierL.AbadieM.BlayeA. (2022). Age-related changes in controllable and uncontrollable processes underlying evaluative conditioning: A comparison between children ages 7 to 11 and young adults. Developmental Psychology, 58(2), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001296
72.
WaroquierL.AbadieM.DienesZ. (2020). Distinguishing the role of conscious and unconscious knowledge in evaluative conditioning. Cognition, 205, 104460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104460
73.
WulffD. U.KieslichP. J.HenningerF.HaslbeckJ. M. B.Schulte-MecklenbeckM. (2021). Movement tracking of cognitive processes: A tutorial using mousetrap [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v685r
74.
YonelinasA. P.JacobyL. L. (2012). The process-dissociation approach two decades later: Convergence, boundary conditions, and new directions. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0205-5
75.
ZerhouniO.BègueL.ComiranF.WiersR. W. (2018). Controlled and implicit processes in evaluative conditioning on implicit and explicit attitudes toward alcohol and intentions to drink. Addictive Behaviors, 76, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.08.026
76.
ZerhouniO.BègueL.O’BrienK. S. (2019). How alcohol advertising and sponsorship works: Effects through indirect measures. Drug and Alcohol Review, 38(4), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12929
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.
