The Role of Awareness in Attitude Formation Through Evaluative Conditioning

Sweldens, Steven; Corneille, Olivier; Yzerbyt, Vincent

doi:10.1177/1088868314527832

Cited by 107 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 158 publications

(335 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, as a field, we have struggled for decades to improve our measurement of even the most basic of operating conditions -contingency awareness -and we have still not settled on an ideal method that yields consistently reliable measurements (Gawronski & Walther, 2012;Sweldens, Corneille, & Yzerbyt, 2014). While research is still at the stage where major improvements in our ability to measure the basic operating conditions of EC are necessary, I believe it would be overly ambitious to develop theories that hold predictions about both principles and multiple operating conditions simultaneously.…”

Section: The Problems With Universal Process Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One possible directions of development might entail a return to item-based US valence versus US identity measures of contingency memory (Stahl, Unkelbach, & Corneille, 2009;Sweldens et al, 2014). Those measures have (rightly) fallen in disuse for their original purpose -examining whether contingency memory is a necessary condition for EC effects to appear.…”

Section: How To Distinguish S -S From S -R Learning?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, putting the principles first will also allow to improve the research we do on operating conditions. Take, for example, the perennial question regarding the necessity of contingency awareness for EC effects to emerge, which has played an important role in nearly 50% of the research efforts devoted to EC (Sweldens et al, 2014). Among the many complications that have plagued this extensive stream of research, a central problem is that researchers are often insufficiently precise regarding the level of awareness they are intending to study (see the Lens Model proposed by Newell & Shanks, 2014;Sweldens, Tuk, & Hütter, 2017).…”

Section: Believe It Is Fair To Say That In the Vast Majority Of Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Sweldens¹

2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:I argue that theorizing in evaluative conditioning has paid insufficient attention to distinguishing what is learned (operating principles) from how and when the learning takes place (operating conditions). In terms of its operating principles, EC effects can be established both via stimulus -stimulus (S -S) and via stimulus -evaluative response (S -R) associations. Operating conditions of EC that have received a lot of attention are the famous features of automaticity (awareness, intentionality, controllability, resource efficiency). A lot of research in our field has focused on investigating operating conditions, without specifying operating principles, which limits the interpretability of previous work, especially if conflicting findings arise. I call for putting the principles before the conditions, and to approach EC theorizing in a more piecemeal manner, from the ground up. I believe for now we should treat the operating principles and operating conditions as orthogonal, and do not assume that only certain processes can lead to certain representations. Evidently, this calls for a lot of future research, and theorizing that is more focused and precise. By specifying and testing clearly both operating principles and conditions, our theories will be (initially) smaller in scope, but likely more verifiable.

show abstract

Section: The Problems With Universal Process Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How To Distinguish S -S From S -R Learning?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Believe It Is Fair To Say That In the Vast Majority Of Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Sweldens¹

2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Theoretically, demonstrations of unconscious influences can range from trivial to crucial in their theoretical contribution, depending on the process level. In the realm of EC, for example, the debate on 'awareness' has been raging for decades (for a review, see Sweldens, Corneille, and Yzerbyt 2014). One reason why the subject generates so much attention is due to its theoretical relevance: since researchers concluded that classical (Pavlovian) conditioning effects in humans are generally not established without participants' conscious knowledge of 9 contingencies between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli (Brewer 1974;Lovibond and Shanks 2002), demonstrations of unaware associative learning were almost exclusively restricted to EC effects.…”

Section: Awareness Of What? the Importance Of Specifying Awareness Atmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relevant question is rather whether the EC effect was established without participants' awareness of the contingency between conditioned stimulus and the valence of the unconditioned stimulus at the time of learning. To this date, such demonstrations remain elusive (Hütter et al 2012;Stahl, Haaf, and Corneille 2016;Sweldens et al 2014). The point is that evidence for unawareness at one level (e.g., of one's behavioral or attitudinal response) would be evaluated very differently from evidence for unawareness at another level (e.g., of the relation between stimuli).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Study Consciousness in Consumer Research, A Commentary on Williams and Poehlman

Sweldens

Tuk

Hütter

2017

Journal of Consumer Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumer research can benefit greatly from more insight in unconscious processes underlying behavior. Williams and Poehlman's effort at more clearly conceptualizing consciousness and call for more research provides a welcome stimulus in this regard. At the same time, providing evidence for unconscious causation is fraught with methodological difficulties. We outline why it is vital to uphold standards of evidence for claims regarding unconscious processes, as it is precisely a lack of rigor on this front which has generated a countermovement by researchers sceptical of dual process models in general and unconscious processes in particular. We contend that the sceptics have offered valid causes for concern, which we leverage to formulate six concrete recommendations for future research on consciousness. Researchers should (1) specify the process level at which they claim evidence for unconscious processes, (2) not confuse unconscious influences with unconscious processes, (3) carefully choose between different operational definitions of awareness, (4) maximally satisfy four criteria for awareness measures, and (5) complement measurement with experimental manipulations of awareness. Finally, we recommend to (6) refrain from hard claims about unconscious causation that transcend the limitations of the evidence, recognizing that consciousness is a continuous construct. Author NoteSteven Sweldens is associate professor of marketing at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands (sweldens@rsm.nl) and distinguished research fellow at INSEAD. Mirjam A. Tuk is assistant professor of marketing at Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, UK (m.tuk@imperial.ac.uk) and visiting professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. Mandy Hütter is junior professor of social psychology at the Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Fachbereich Psychologie, Schleichstr. 4, 72076 Tübingen, Germany (mandy.huetter@uni-tuebingen.de). 2To better understand, aid and protect consumers, it is imperative to have an accurate understanding of unconscious drivers of behavior. We therefore welcome Williams and Poehlman's (2016) effort to stimulate and more clearly conceptualize the study of consciousness in consumer research. Past research on consciousness has struggled with two major stumbling blocks. First, it is difficult to provide an accurate definition of consciousness, not least because we do not really know how the experience of consciousness originates. As a consequence, there has been much variation in how conscious versus unconscious processing have been defined and operationalized in past research. We believe Williams and Poehlman (WP) have made important progress here by restricting the definition of consciousness to awareness, highlighting its functions and distinguishing it from other features of automaticity. Second, even when researchers agree on a definition (e.g., "awareness"),...

show abstract

Not all positive categories are alike: Exploring the superiority of the self as a positive source for associative attitude change via intersecting regularities

Mattavelli

Richetin

Perugini

2018

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In associative evaluative learning, attitudes can originate from intersecting regularities between a target and both positive‐ and self‐related stimuli. Liking for a focal target is primarily driven by its reference to one source, but it might be qualified by the reference to a contrast target. This contribution focuses on how the nature of positive and contrast sources affects learning via intersecting regularities. In two studies (N = 199 and N = 185), the self and another positive category lead to increased implicit and explicit liking, regardless of the contrast source's valence. In Study 3 (N = 128), confronting the self and the positive category in the same paradigm yields only implicit preferences for self‐related targets. Both implicitly and explicitly, this preference for self‐ over positive‐related target was moderated by self‐positivity. Our findings confirm the robustness of learning via intersecting regularities and suggest that the self is a special evaluative source.

show abstract

The Role of Awareness in Attitude Formation Through Evaluative Conditioning

Cited by 107 publications

References 158 publications

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

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

How to Study Consciousness in Consumer Research, A Commentary on Williams and Poehlman

Not all positive categories are alike: Exploring the superiority of the self as a positive source for associative attitude change via intersecting regularities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About