Evaluative Conditioning (EC) is the change in liking of stimuli due to their co-occurrence with other valenced stimuli. Recent research has shown stronger EC effects for more agreeable individuals. Because EC procedures are prone to demand characteristics, we hypothesized that more agreeable individuals might simply play the role of good study participants and therefore show stronger EC effects. We tested this in two preregistered experiments (N = 700). In Experiment 1, self-reported Agreeableness and a behavioral measure of Demand Compliance moderated EC. However, Agreeableness and Demand Compliance were uncorrelated, and the moderations were independent. Experiment 2 used an instructional EC paradigm, showing only a moderation by Demand Compliance but not Agreeableness. Our studies imply that although EC effects are related to Demand Compliance, more agreeable participants are not more likely to comply with demand characteristics in EC experiments.
AllenC. T.JaniszewskiC. A. (1989). Assessing the role of contingency awareness in attitudinal conditioning with implications for advertising research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378902600103
2.
Bar-AnanY.De HouwerJ.NosekB. A. (2010). Evaluative conditioning and conscious knowledge of contingencies: A correlational investigation with large samples. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2313–2335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003802442
3.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BresinK.RobinsonM. D. (2015). You are what you see and choose: Agreeableness and situation selection. Journal of Personality, 83(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12121
6.
CarloG.OkunM. A.KnightG. P.de GuzmanM. R. T. (2005). The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.012
CorneilleO.LushP. (2023). Sixty years after Orne’s American psychologist article: A conceptual framework for subjective experiences elicited by demand characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221104368
9.
DannerD.RammstedtB.BluemkeM.LechnerC.BerresS.KnopfT.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2019). Das big five inventar 2. Diagnostica, 65(3), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000218
10.
De HouwerJ. (2006). Using the implicit association test does not rule out an impact of conscious propositional knowledge on evaluative conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 37(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2005.12.002
11.
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
De HouwerJ.GawronskiB.Barnes-HolmesD. (2013). A functional-cognitive framework for attitude research. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 252–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.892320
14.
DienesZ.LushP. (2023). The role of phenomenological control in experience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221150521
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, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
17.
FinleyA. J.CrowellA. L.Harmon-JonesE.SchmeichelB. J. (2017). The influence of agreeableness and ego depletion on emotional responding. Journal of Personality, 85(5), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12267
18.
FrenchA. R.FranzT. M.PhelanL. L.BlaineB. E. (2013). Reducing Muslim/Arab stereotypes through evaluative conditioning. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.706242
19.
GrayJ. A. (1981). A critique of eysenck’s theory of personality BT–A model for personality (EysenckH. J., Ed., pp. 246–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0_8
20.
GrazianoW. G.TobinR. M. (2017). Agreeableness and the five factor model. In WidigerT. A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (Vol. 1, pp. 105–131). Oxford University Press.
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
23.
HütterM.De HouwerJ. (2017). Examining the contributions of memory-dependent and memory-independent components to evaluative conditioning via instructions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.02.007
24.
HütterM.SweldensS.StahlC.UnkelbachC.KlauerK. C. (2012). Dissociating contingency awareness and conditioned attitudes: Evidence of contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026477
25.
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
26.
IngendahlM.VogelT. (2023). (Why) do big five personality traits moderate evaluative conditioning? The role of US extremity and pairing memory. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1), Article 74812. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74812
27.
IngendahlM.VogelT.MaedcheA.WänkeM. (2023). Brand placements in video games: How local in-game experiences influence brand attitudes. Psychology & Marketing, 40, 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21770
28.
IngendahlM.WoitzelJ.PropheterN.WänkeM.AlvesH. (2023). From deviant likes to reversed effects: Re-investigating the contribution of unaware evaluative conditioning to attitude formation. Collabra: Psychology. https://osf.io/tpa3v/?view_only=efece7baf55940aa9707f3861f3369ca
29.
KasranS.HughesS.De HouwerJ. (2022). Observational evaluative conditioning is sensitive to relational information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(11), 2043–2063. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221080471
30.
KleinO.DoyenS.LeysC.Magalhães de Saldanha da GamaP. A.MillerS.QuestienneL.CleeremansA. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463704
31.
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
32.
LearyM. R.KellyK. M.CottrellC. A.SchreindorferL. S. (2013). Construct validity of the Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511
NicholsA. L.ManerJ. K. (2008). The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics. The Journal of General Psychology, 135(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166
36.
OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2006). Reducing automatically activated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284004
37.
OrneM. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424
PageM. M. (1973). On detecting demand awareness by postexperimental questionnaire. Journal of Social Psychology, 91(2), 305–323.
40.
RevelleW. (2022). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
41.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more (Version 0.5–12 (BETA)). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
42.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
43.
StaatsA. W. (1969). Experimental demand characteristics and the classical conditioning of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027026
44.
TehraniH. D.YaminiS. (2020). Personality traits and conflict resolution styles: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, Article 109794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109794
45.
TingleyD.YamamotoT.HiroseK.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05
46.
VogelT.HütterM.GebauerJ. E. (2019). Is evaluative conditioning moderated by big five personality traits?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617740193
47.
WilmotM. P.OnesD. S. (2022). Agreeableness and its consequences: A quantitative review of meta-analytic findings. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(3), 242–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211073007
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.
