When All Is Revealed: A Dissociation between Evaluative Learning and Contingency Awareness

Fulcher, Eamon P.; Hammerl, Marianne

doi:10.1006/ccog.2001.0525

Cited by 69 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fulcher & Hammerl, 2001). Pleyers, Corneille, Luminet, and Yzerbzt (2007) pointed out that it is more precise to consider knowledge about the pairings at the level of a given stimulus pair.…”

Section: Increased Methodological and Conceptual Sophisticationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions

Gast

Gawronski

Houwer

2012

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is generally considered to be one of the routes via which likes and dislikes are acquired. We identify recent trends in EC research and speculate about the topics that will dominate future research on EC. Many of the recent developments in EC research were shaped by functional definitions of EC that refer only to environmental conditions, but not to mental processes and representations. These functional definitions stimulated the development of and debates between theories about the mental processes that mediate EC. These trends, as well as greater methodological and conceptual sophistication, inspired meta-conditional studies that aim at determining the conditions under which EC is characterized by certain properties. The question of whether EC depends on contingency awareness remains a central topic, albeit with a stronger link to theorizing about underlying mental processes. Other automaticity features have gained enhanced interest, as can for example be seen in research investigating whether EC is goal-independent and whether EC is resource-independent. We argue that future research would benefit from a sharper distinction between processes that operate during acquisition (i.e., when CS-US pairs are presented) and processes that operate during measurement (i.e., when the effects of CS-US pairings are assessed). We conclude with a short summary of all articles in this Special Issue, relating them to the identified trends in EC research.

show abstract

Section: Increased Methodological and Conceptual Sophisticationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions

Gast

Gawronski

Houwer

2012

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pleyers et al 2007), only when participants are not contingency aware (e.g. Fulcher & Hammerl, 2001), and has also been found to be uncorrelated with EC (e.g. Baeyens et al, 1988Baeyens et al, , 1993.…”

Section: Other Mechanisms Of Ecmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Dijksterhuis, 2004;Jones, Pelham, Carvallo, & Mirenberg, 2004;Walther, 2002), evaluative conditioning itself remains poorly understood. Inconsistent empirical findings abound in EC research, such as in the much contested issue of the of the relationship between EC and contingency awareness (Fulcher & Hammerl, 2001;Pleyers, Corneille, Luminet, & Yzerbyt, 2007;Walther & Nagengast, 2006), as in whether an intact amygdala is necessary for EC (Coppens, Vansteenwegen, Baeyens, Vandenbulcke, Van Paesschen, & Eelen, 2006;Johnsrude, Owen, White, Zhao, & Bohbot, 2000), or as in the extent to which EC is resistant to extinction (Baeyens et al, 1988;Lipp, Oughton, & LeLievre, 2003). EC also remains a notably ephemeral phenomenon subject to unexplained failure (for a discussion, see Rozin, Wrezesniewski, & Byrnes' (1999) aptly titled article "The elusiveness of evaluative conditioning"), indicating that its boundary conditions remain poorly understood (De Houwer, Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001).…”

Section: Evaluative Conditioning and Pavlovian Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit Misattribution as a Mechanism Underlying Evaluative Conditioning

Jones¹,

Fázio²,

Olson³

2007

PsycEXTRA Dataset

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluative conditioning (EC) refers to the formation or change of an attitude towards an object following that object's pairing with positively or negatively valenced stimuli. We provide evidence that EC can occur through an implicit misattribution mechanism in which an evaluative response evoked by a valenced stimulus is incorrectly and implicitly attributed to another stimulus, forming or changing an attitude towards this other stimulus. Five studies measured or manipulated variables related to the potential for the misattribution of an evaluation, or "source confusability." Greater EC was observed when participants' eye gaze shifted frequently between a valenced and neutral stimulus (Studies 1 & 2), when the two stimuli appeared in close spatial proximity (Study 3), and when the neutral stimulus was made more perceptually salient than the valenced stimulus due to its larger size (Study 4). In other words, conditions conducive to source confusability increased EC. Study 5 provided evidence for multiple mechanisms of EC by comparing the effects of mildly evocative valenced stimuli (those evoking responses that might more easily be misattributed to another object) to more strongly evocative stimuli.

show abstract

“…In addition, the finding of stronger effects in less conscious than in fully conscious conditions contradicts the view that suboptimal processing constitutes only diluted conscious processing (i.e., with some trials inadvertently processed consciously). This type of result has primarily been found in the affective domain (Bornstein, 1989;Fulcher & Hammerl, 2001;Janssen, Everaerd, Spiering, & Janssen, 2000;Murphy & Zajonc, 1993;Rotteveel, de Groot, Geutskens, & Phaf, 2001;Stapel, Koomen, & Ruys, 2002), whereas weaker suboptimal effects than optimal effects are usually obtained in other, more nonaffective, domains (e.g., Lubke, Kerssens, Phaf, & Sebel, 1999;Maxfield, 1997;Murphy & Zajonc, 1993, Experiments 3-6;but see De Fockert, Rees, Frith, & Lavie, 2001). Merikle and Joordens (1997) have argued that divided attention and impoverished (i.e., short, masked) presentation can both be used to produce suboptimal conditions, so that both should have corresponding effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Loading working memory enhances affective priming

Rotteveel

Phaf

2004

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stronger affectivepriming (Murphy & Zajonc, 1993)with suboptimal (i.e., reduced consciousness) than with optimal (i.e., full consciousness) prime presentation suggests that nonconscious processes form an important part of emotions. Merikle and Joordens (1997) have argued that both impoverished presentation and divided attention can produce suboptimal conditions and result in parallel effects. We manipulated attention by means of a concurrent working memory load while keeping presentation duration constant, as participants evaluated Japanese ideographs that were preceded by happy, neutral, or angry faces (affective priming) and male or female faces (nonaffective priming). In contrast to nonaffective priming, affective priming was larger with divided attention than with focused attention. It is concluded that manipulations of stimulus quality and of attention can both be used to probe the distinction between conscious and nonconscious processes and that the highest chances of obtaining the pattern of stronger priming with suboptimal presentation than with optimal presentation occur in the affective domain.

show abstract

When All Is Revealed: A Dissociation between Evaluative Learning and Contingency Awareness

Cited by 69 publications

References 40 publications

Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions

Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions

Implicit Misattribution as a Mechanism Underlying Evaluative Conditioning

Loading working memory enhances affective priming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About