Can (Instructions About) Stimulus Pairings Influence Automatic and Self-Reported Evaluations in the Presence of More Diagnostic Evaluative Information?

Evaluative conditioning (EC) and persuasion are important pathways for shaping evaluations. However, little is known about how these pathways interact. Two preregistered experiments (total N = 1,510) examined effects of EC procedures (i.e., stimulus pairings) and EC instructions (i.e., instructions about stimulus pairings) on automatic and self-reported evaluations of social groups in the presence of more diagnostic information about the evaluative traits of those groups. Interestingly, both EC procedures and EC instructions still influenced automatic and self-reported evaluations when participants had read more diagnostic persuasive information. In line with predictions of propositional accounts of evaluation, EC instruction effects on automatic evaluations were not mediated by corresponding changes in self-reported evaluations. These results have theoretical implications and also highlight the important role that (instructions about) stimulus pairings have in social learning.

Can (instructions about) stimulus pairings influence automatic and self-reported evaluations in the presence of more diagnostic evaluative information?

Evaluative Conditioning (EC) and persuasion are important pathways for shaping evaluations. However, little is known about how these pathways interact. Two preregistered experiments (total N=1,510) examined effects of EC procedures (i.e., stimulus pairings) and EC instructions (i.e., instructions about stimulus pairings) on auto-matic and self-reported evaluations of social groups in the presence of more diagnostic information about the evaluative traits of those groups. Interestingly, both EC procedures and EC instructions still influenced automatic and self-reported evaluations when participants had read more diagnostic persuasive information. In line with predictions of propositional accounts of evaluation, EC instruction effects on automatic evaluations were not mediated by corresponding changes in self-reported evaluations. These results have theoretical implications and also highlight the important role that (instructions about) stimulus pairings have in social learning.

The Mere Exposure Instruction Effect

The mere exposure effect refers to the well-established finding that people evaluate a stimulus more positively after repeated exposure to that stimulus. We investigated whether a change in stimulus evaluation can occur also when participants are not repeatedly exposed to a stimulus, but are merely instructed that one stimulus will occur frequently and another stimulus will occur infrequently. We report seven experiments showing that (1) mere exposure instructions influence implicit stimulus evaluations as measured with an Implicit Association Test (IAT), personalized Implicit Association Test (pIAT), or Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), but not with an Evaluative Priming Task (EPT), (2) mere exposure instructions influence explicit evaluations, and (3) the instruction effect depends on participants’ memory of which stimulus will be presented more frequently. We discuss how these findings inform us about the boundary conditions of mere exposure instruction effects, as well as the mental processes that underlie mere exposure and mere exposure instruction effects.