Propositional Versus Dual-Process Accounts of Evaluative Conditioning

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqing Hu ◽  
Bertram Gawronski ◽  
Robert Balas
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Relational Information ◽  
The Us

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is defined as the change in the evaluation of a conditioned stimulus (CS) due to its pairing with a valenced unconditioned stimulus (US). According to propositional accounts, EC effects should be qualified by the relation between the CS and the US. Dual-process accounts suggest that relational information should qualify EC effects on explicit evaluations, whereas implicit evaluations should reflect the frequency of CS–US co-occurrences. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that, when relational information was provided before the encoding of CS–US pairings, it moderated EC effects on explicit, but not implicit, evaluations. In Experiment 3, relational information moderated EC effects on both explicit and implicit evaluations when it was provided simultaneously with CS–US pairings. Frequency of CS–US pairings had no effect on implicit evaluations. Although the results can be reconciled with both propositional and dual-process accounts, they are more parsimoniously explained by propositional accounts.

scholarly journals No Evaluative Conditioning Effects with Briefly Presented Stimuli

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Neutral Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Contingency Awareness ◽  
The Us

Evaluative Conditioning (EC) changes the preference towards a formerly neutral stimulus (Conditioned Stimulus; CS), by pairing it with a valent stimulus (Unconditioned Stimulus; US), in the direction of the valence of the US. When the CS is presented subliminally (i.e., too briefly to be consciously perceived), contingency awareness between CS and US can be ruled out. Hence, EC effects with subliminal CSs would support theories claiming that contingency awareness is not necessary for EC effects to occur. Recent studies reported the absence of EC with briefly presented CSs when both CS and US were presented in the visual modality, even though the CSs were identified at above-chance levels. Challenging this finding, Heycke and colleagues (2017) found some evidence for an EC effect with briefly presented visual stimuli in a cross-modal paradigm with auditory USs, but that study did not assess CS visibility. The present study attempted to replicate this EC effect with different stimuli and a CS visibility check. Overall EC for briefly presented stimuli was absent, and results from the visibility check show that an EC effect with briefly presented CSs was only found, when the CSs were identified at above-chance levels.

Propositional Versus Dual-Process Accounts of Evaluative Conditioning

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 858-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqing Hu ◽  
Bertram Gawronski ◽  
Robert Balas
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Functional Equivalence ◽  
Single Process ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is defined as the change in the evaluation of a conditioned stimulus (CS) due to its pairing with a valenced unconditioned stimulus (US). Expanding on the debate between dual-process and propositional accounts, two studies investigated the relative effectiveness of counter-conditioning and counter-instructions in reversing EC effects on implicit and explicit evaluations. After conditioned evaluations were acquired via CS-US pairings, participants were either (1) presented with repeated CS-US pairings of the opposite valence or (2) given instructions that the CSs will be paired with USs of the opposite valence. Although both procedures reversed previously conditioned explicit evaluations, only directly experienced CS-US pairings reversed previously conditioned implicit evaluations. The findings question the functional equivalence of counter-conditioning and counter-instructions hypothesized by single-process propositional accounts. Yet, they support dual-process accounts, suggesting that associative and propositional processes jointly contribute to EC effects.

Ring My Bell

2019 ◽  
pp. 303-315
Author(s):  
Patrik N. Juslin
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Special Form ◽  
Affective State ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
The Us ◽  
Psychological Mechanism ◽  
Classic Conditioning

This chapter considers the psychological mechanism known as evaluative conditioning. Evaluative conditioning is defined as a process whereby an emotion is evoked by a piece of music just because this stimulus has been paired, repeatedly, with other positive or negative stimuli, which are not necessarily logically connected to the music in any way. It is a special form of classic conditioning that involves the pairing of an initially neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with an affectively valenced, unconditioned stimulus (US). After the pairing, the CS acquires the ability to arouse the same affective state as the US in the perceiver. The remainder of the chapter discusses the characteristics of evaluative conditioning, the emotions that conditioning might arouse, and the role of conditioning in everyday life.

scholarly journals Subliminal influence on preferences? A test of evaluative conditioning for brief visual conditioned stimuli using auditory unconditioned stimuli

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
pp. 160935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Conditioned Stimuli ◽  
Contingency Awareness ◽  
Single Process ◽  
Theory Versus

In the field of evaluative conditioning (EC), two opposing theories—propositional single-process theory versus dual-process theory—are currently being discussed in the literature. The present set of experiments test a crucial prediction to adjudicate between these two theories: Dual-process theory postulates that evaluative conditioning can occur without awareness of the contingency between conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US); in contrast, single-process propositional theory postulates that EC requires CS-US contingency awareness. In a set of three studies, we experimentally manipulate contingency awareness by presenting the CSs very briefly, thereby rendering it unlikely to be processed consciously. We address potential issues with previous studies on EC with subliminal or near-threshold CSs that limited their interpretation. Across two experiments, we consistently found an EC effect for CSs presented for 1000 ms and consistently failed to find an EC effect for briefly presented CSs. In a third pre-registered experiment, we again found evidence for an EC effect with CSs presented for 1000 ms, and we found some indication for an EC effect for CSs presented for 20 ms.

scholarly journals Crossmodal evaluative conditioning with briefly presented visual conditioned stimuli

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Conditioned Stimuli ◽  
Contingency Awareness ◽  
Single Process ◽  
Theory Versus

In the field of evaluative conditioning (EC), two opposing theories—propositional single-process theory versus dual-process theory—are currently being discussed in the literature. The present set of experiments test a crucial prediction to adjudicate between these two theories: Dual-process theory postulates that evaluative conditioning can occur without awareness of the contingency between conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US); in contrast, single-process propositional theory postulates that EC requires CS-US contingency awareness. In a set of three studies, we experimentally manipulate contingency awareness by presenting the CSs very briefly, thereby rendering it unlikely to be processed consciously. We address potential issues with previous studies on EC with subliminal or near-threshold CSs that limited their interpretation. Across two experiments, we consistently found an EC effect for CSs presented for 1000 ms and consistently failed to find an EC effect for briefly presented CSs. In a third pre-registered experiment, we again found evidence for an EC effect with CSs presented for 1000 ms, and we found some indication for an EC effect for CSs presented for 20 ms.

scholarly journals The Effect of Co-occurrence and Relational Information on Speeded Evaluation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Moran ◽  
Yoav Bar-Anan
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Contrast Effect ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Relational Information ◽  
Associative Processes ◽  
The Us

After co-occurrence of a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with an affective unconditioned stimulus (US), the evaluation of the CS acquires the US valence. This effect disappears when information about the CS-US relation indicates that they are opposite in valence. In that case, people often show a contrastive effect, evaluating the CS with valence opposite of the US. We investigated whether the assimilative effect of co-occurrence persists and is only obscured by a stronger counteracting contrast effect of the inference from the CS-US opposition relation. Participants evaluated CSs that had opposite relations with the USs under time pressure, a condition that restricts inference processes more than it restricts the associative processes that might underlie the assimilative effect of co-occurrence. Evidence supporting the persistence of the assimilative effect emerged only in Experiment 2 (N = 79): Under time pressure, people evaluated creatures that ended positive sounds more favorably than creatures that ended negative sounds. However, no difference between the creatures’ evaluations occurred under time pressure in Experiments 1 and 3 (Ns = 78, 460). These results are inconclusive because they might reflect equal contrastive and assimilative effects or no effects at all. We discuss further research directions to test our question.

Exploring the Contextual Renewal of Conditioned Attitudes After Counterconditioning

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 287-323
Author(s):  
Bertram Gawronski ◽  
Skylar M. Brannon ◽  
Katarina Blask ◽  
Eva Walther
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Boundary Conditions ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Attitude Change ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Verbal Information

Research on contextualized attitude change suggests that, even when coun-terattitudinal information effectively influences evaluations in the context in which this information was learned, previously formed attitudes sometimes continue to determine evaluations in any other context (contextual renewal). Expanding on evidence for contextual renewal in attitude change based on verbal information, five experiments tested the emergence of contextual renewal in evaluative conditioning, involving pairings of a conditioned stimulus with a valenced unconditioned stimulus. Counter to the notion of contextual renewal, counterconditioning changed initially conditioned attitudes to the same extent irrespective of the context. Verbal information presented with the same procedural parameters produced contextual renewal effects only when evaluations were not measured between the formation of initial attitudes and the learning of counterattitudinal information. The results suggest two previously unidentified boundary conditions of contextualized attitude change that need to be reconciled with extant theories of evaluative learning.

scholarly journals Reactivation of hedonic but not sensory representations in human emotional learning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mana R Ehlers ◽  
James H Kryklywy ◽  
Andre O Beukers ◽  
Sarah R Moore ◽  
Forys J Brandon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Fmri Data ◽  
Similarity Analysis ◽  
Appetitive Conditioning ◽  
Activation Patterns ◽  
The Us ◽  
Novel Variation

Learning which stimuli in our environment co-occur with painful or pleasurable events is critical for survival. Previous research has established the basic neural and behavioural mechanisms of aversive and appetitive conditioning; however, it is unclear what precisely is learned. Here we examined what aspects of the unconditioned stimulus (US), sensory and hedonic, are transferred to the conditioned stimulus (CS). To decode the content of brain activation patterns elicited during appetitive (soft touch) and aversive (painful touch) conditioning of faces, a novel variation of representational similarity analysis (RSA) based on theoretically driven representational patterns of interest (POIs) was applied to fMRI data. Once face associations were learned through conditioning, globally the CS reactivated US representational patterns showing conditioning dependent reactivation. More specifically, in higher order brain regions, the CS only reactivated hedonic but not sensory aspects of the US, suggesting that affective conditioning primarily carries forward the valence of the experience rather than its sensory origins.

scholarly journals A Declarative Memory Model of Evaluative Conditioning

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Gast
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Attitude Change ◽  
Memory Trace ◽  
Declarative Memory ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Memory Model ◽  
Memory Research ◽  
The Us ◽  
Valence Change

I propose a Declarative Memory Model (DMM) of evaluative conditioning (EC). EC effects are changes in the valence of a conditioned stimulus (CS) due to previous pairings with a positive or negative unconditioned stimulus (US; e.g., De Houwer, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006491). According to the DMM, EC effects are found if (1) a memory trace is formed in the learning phase that links the CS to evaluative information from the US, if (2) this trace survives the retention interval, if (3) the trace or part of it is consciously retrieved when the CS is being evaluated, and if (4) the retrieved trace is used in the CS evaluation. For each of these stages, I make separate predictions about EC effects, many of which are based on empirical research on declarative memory. Where available, I report and discuss empirical evidence on EC that speaks to these hypotheses. The available empirical evidence is largely in line with the predictions of the DMM. Several predictions, however, have yet to be tested and some findings are ambiguous. While the DMM specifies conditions under which CS-US pairings should lead to a valence change, it does not deny the possibility that other processes might lead to a change in attitude as well. Advantages of the DMM are its foundation on declarative memory research, its applicability for attitude change effects in general, and its suitability for predictions of EC effects in the real world.

scholarly journals Higher-Order Conditioning: What Is Learnt and How it Is Expressed

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Honey ◽  
Dominic M. Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Pavlovian Conditioning ◽  
Formal Analysis ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Conditioning ◽  
The Us ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Conditioned Responses

Pairing a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with a motivationally significant unconditioned stimulus (US) results in the CS coming to elicit conditioned responses (CRs). The widespread significance and translational value of Pavlovian conditioning are increased by the fact that pairing two neutral CSs (A and X) enables conditioning with X to affect behavior to A. There are two traditional informal accounts of such higher-order conditioning, which build on more formal associative analyses of Pavlovian conditioning. But, higher-order conditioning and Pavlovian conditioning have characteristics that are beyond these accounts: Notably, the two are influenced in different ways by the same experimental manipulations, and both generate conditioned responses that do not reflect the US per se. Here, we present a formal analysis that sought to address these characteristics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document