Implicit misattribution of evaluative responses: Contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning requires simultaneous stimulus presentations.

Abstract

Recent research has shown that evaluative conditioning (EC) procedures can change attitudes without participants' awareness of the contingencies between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli (Hütter, Sweldens, Stahl, Unkelbach, & Klauer, 2012). We present a theoretical explanation and boundary condition for the emergence of unaware EC effects based on the implicit misattribution of evaluative responses from unconditioned to conditioned stimuli. We hypothesize that such misattribution is only possible when conditioned and unconditioned stimuli are perceived simultaneously. Therefore we manipulate the simultaneity of the stimulus presentations and apply a process dissociation procedure to distinguish contingency-aware from contingency-unaware EC effects. A multinomial model indicates that with sequential presentations, EC effects do not occur without contingency awareness. However, unaware EC effects do occur with simultaneous presentations. The findings support dual-process theories of learning.

Putting Operating Principles (What) Before Conditions (How and When) to Improve Theorizing: S - S versus S - R learning in Evaluative Conditioning

“…I believe implicit misattribution is one possible way in which S -R associations could be created, and for it to occur, simultaneous presentations are likely crucial. As corroborating evidence, there are now several studies which have demonstrated with different methodologies the superiority of simultaneous CS -US presentations in generating EC effects in the absence of contingency awareness (Hütter & Sweldens, 2013;Stahl & Heycke, 2016). Yet, I also believe S -R representations can be formed by psychological processes that are very different from implicit misattribution.…”

Direct evaluative conditioning in brand placement: The impact of scene valence and prominence on brand placement repetition effects

“…However, several researchers have suggested that implicit processes more likely affect implicit than explicit attitudes (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). As implicit misattribution is an automatic and implicit process (Hütter & Sweldens, 2012), its impact on implicit attitudes could be stronger than its impact on explicit attitudes. Moreover, Wennekers, Vandeberg, Zoon, and van Reijmersdal (2015) suggested that subtle placements more likely cause an implicit affect transfer and influence implicit brand attitudes, whereas prominent placements tend to cause a more cognitive form of affect transfer and therefore influence explicit brand attitudes.…”

“…However, previous research has shown that repeated pairings with various different (not identical) negative or positive stimuli can also affect the viewer's attitude toward the brand (Stahl & Unkelbach, 2009;Sweldens et al, 2010). The affective reaction caused by the different affective stimuli may be implicitly misattributed to the brand when presented simultaneously (Jones, Fazio, & Olson, 2009;Hütter & Sweldens, 2012). This effect is referred to as direct evaluative conditioning, because the affect becomes directly associated with the neutral stimulus (stimulus-response association; Sweldens et al, 2010).…”

News Media Depictions of Obama Influence Automatic Attitudes: Implications for the Obama Effect

“…Thus, when clearly negative text is superimposed across an image, the affect which is automatically experienced when briefly scanning the text can be misattributed to the individual saliently depicted in the picture (Hütter & Sweldens, 2013;Jones, Fazio, & Olson, 2009). Such a style of web-browsing may discourage those interested in the more thoughtful and energy-consuming modes of social influence, but it is well-suited for the sorts of influences argued to be so pervasive by implicit attitudes researchers.…”

“…Our work and others (Hütter & Sweldens, 2013;Jones, Fazio, & Olson, 2009) has shown that elements presented simultaneously or in close proximity can generate "source confusability" regarding the affect generated by the perceptual experience such that affect from one object is misattributed to the other. Affect is more likely to be misattributed when elements are presented in close proximity and when eye-gaze shifts between them are facilitated (Jones et al, 2009).…”